О святом Вселенском первом соборе

The first Holy Ecumenical Council [1] was convened in Nicaea of ​​Bithynia under Constantine the Great in 325 after the Nativity of Christ. It was attended by prominent men: Alexander of Constantinople; presbyters Viton and Vincent, together with the venerable bishop of Cordoba, or Corduba, in Spain, the three of them representing Pope Sylvester and Julius 2; Alexander of Alexandria with his companion Athanasius the Great, then a deacon; Eustathius of Antioch; Macarius of Jerusalem; Paphnutius and Spyridon, Jacob and Maximus are men decorated with apostolic gifts and martyrdom wounds; and many others, according to generally accepted church tradition, numbering 318. In addition to them, many more clergy, presbyters and deacons were present at the Council. This Council was assembled against Arius, who blasphemed, saying that the Son and Word of God is not consubstantial with the Father and, therefore, He is not the true God, but a creature and a creature [3]. The Council, lasting three and a half years 4 (although Gelasius, in the 256th reading from Photius, speaks of six and a half years) 5, taught the general and well-known divine and sacred Symbol of our Orthodox faith, in which it proclaimed the Son and Word of God to be the true God, consubstantial with the Father, that is, having the same essence and nature as the Father, and therefore the same glory, power, dominion, eternity and all other properties of the Divine nature appropriate to God. The symbol literally reads as follows: “We believe in One God the Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, the Only Begotten, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial [ 6 ] with the Father, through whom all things came into being both in heaven and on earth. For our sake, men, and for our salvation, He came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, coming again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say that there was a time when there was no Son, and that He was not before birth and came from non-existent things, or who claim that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or essence, or that he is changeable or changeable, such are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church" [7]. Theodore of Jerusalem called this Symbol a right confession of faith, and Damasus of Rome called it a wall against the weapons of the devil. And in general, the entire Church recognizes it as a distinctive sign, the battle banner of the Orthodox, thanks to which they, as true warriors of Christ, are distinguished from the enemies of Christ and from those who, being false brethren and slanderous, hide behind the name of Christ. After all, warriors also distinguish their comrades from their enemies by special symbols. That’s why the Creed got its name metaphorically – from military symbols. The Council also issued a ruling on Easter, which the Eastern Catholic Church now keeps unchanged (see Apostle 7 and Antiochus 1 about this). The real twenty sacred rules were also set forth, indirectly confirmed by the IV Om. 1, and directly – VI Omni. 2 and VII Omni. 1. Note that the acts of this First Council have not been preserved in either Greek or Latin; all that remained was what was recorded by Eusebius Pamphilus, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome and others, and mainly and especially by Gelasius of Cysia under the emperor Zeno, in 476, who later became the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (see: Synodicon. T. 1. P. 151). So, only what was recorded by the above-mentioned historians and the named Gelasius has been preserved. Nicetas Choniates calls the description of Gelasius acts, and Photius calls it history rather than acts 8; John Cyparissiot also mentions this description (see: Dositheos. Twelve Books. P. 108). 20 rules of the Holy Ecumenical First Council with interpretations If someone's limbs are taken away by doctors during illness, or someone is castrated by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. If someone, being healthy, castrated himself, such a person, even if he was ranked among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on none of these should be promoted to the clergy. And since it is clear that this is said about those who act in this way deliberately and dare to emasculate themselves, then if someone is emasculated by barbarians or masters and nevertheless turns out to be worthy, the rule admits such to the clergy. (Apost. 21–23; Double 8.) Various apostolic canons rule on castration. Since, apparently, they were neglected, it became necessary for the present rule to make a determination on this issue. It says that if he is castrated by doctors due to illness and disease, or by barbarians during an attack, if he is a cleric, let him perform the service of a cleric. But one who has castrated himself while healthy must stop serving as a cleric, if he is a cleric, and if he is a layman, then from that day forward he cannot become a cleric. However, we say this about those who deliberately and voluntarily dare to emasculate themselves; in turn, castrated by barbarians or their masters, that is, against their will and by force, but worthy ones can be accepted into the clergy, according to the rule (or the present one, or Apostle 21). Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 21. Since, out of necessity or due to other human motives, much has been done contrary to the church rule, so that people who have recently come to the faith after a pagan life and have been catechumens for a short time are immediately brought to the spiritual font and, as soon as they are baptized, they are elevated to the episcopate or presbytery, it is recognized as a good thing, so that nothing like this will happen in the future, because the catechumen requires time, and after baptism - an even greater test. For the Apostolic Scripture clearly says: He must not be one of the new converts, lest he become proud and fall into condemnation with the devil (1 Tim. 3:6) and fall into his snare. If, over time, some spiritual sin is discovered in such a person and he is exposed by two or three witnesses, then he will be prohibited from serving. And those who act contrary to this, as those who dare to resist the great Council, are in danger of being expelled from the clergy. (Apost. 80; Dvukrat. 17; Sardik. 10; Laodice. 3; Cyril Alexander. 4.) What the 80th Rule of the Holy Apostles defines, the present rule also prescribes. In previous times, many cases occurred when, contrary to church canon (i.e. Apost. 80), some, out of necessity or for some other reason, were inclined to immediately baptize those who had recently converted from paganism and unbelief to the Orthodox faith. After these converts had undergone a short announcement of the mystery of piety, 9 simultaneously with baptism, they were elevated to episcopacy or presbytery (in other words, they were ordained presbyters and bishops). And since, I say, such illegal cases have occurred before, it seemed fair that from now on this should not happen. For the catechumen, even before he accepts baptism, requires sufficient time [10] for him to be catechumen and well taught in all the dogmas of the faith, and after baptism a long trial is again necessary. In fact, the apostle says to Timothy: Do not ordain a new convert, i.e. not the one who has just been declared and only recently planted in the vineyard of Christ, lest he fall, having ascended, into the same sin and the same snare into which the devil fell, that is, into pride. If, after the passage of time, in someone who, after the probationary period, has been catechized, baptized and ordained, some spiritual sin is discovered [ 11 ] and the person is convicted of it by two or three witnesses, then let him stop performing actions inherent in the priesthood. Anyone who intends to act contrary to this injunction, as one who dares to oppose this great Council, will endanger his priesthood, that is, he will be deposed. See also the interpretation of Apost. 80. The Great Council resolutely forbade a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to have a woman cohabiting in the house, with the exception of a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or those persons who are beyond any suspicion. (VI Omni. 5; VII Om. 22; Ankyra. 19; Carthage. 45; Basil the Great. 88.) Priests and clergy should not give the people any reason for suspicion or temptation. Therefore, the present rule says that this great Council, that is, the First Council, completely forbade a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or any other clergy, to have the opportunity and right to keep a strange woman in his house and live with her, with the exception of his mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who do not arouse suspicion. The decree of the 1st title also speaks. “Novel”, which is the 123rd short story of Justinian: “In accordance with the power of divine rules, we also prohibit presbyters, deacons, subdeacons and all other clergy who do not have legal wives from having a strange woman in their house, unless it is a mother, daughter, sister and other persons who do not arouse suspicion. If anyone does not comply with this, but, having received a reminder from the bishop and his fellow clerics, is not persuaded to drive away the woman he has, or if the accusation against him is proven that he lives indecently with her, he should be deposed and handed over to the councilors of the city in which he is a cleric.” If a bishop lives in the same house with any woman, he is ejected [13]. Notice two things here. Firstly, those who have in their house persons free from suspicion, as we said (i.e. mother, sister, aunt, etc.), should not at the same time have persons arousing suspicion to serve not themselves, but those women who are above suspicion; because in this case the clerics still turn out to be criminals and are subject to penances determined by the rules. But it is fitting that these women either serve themselves, or have servants who do not arouse suspicion. Secondly, monks who have relatives should not live with them, although these are persons free from suspicion. After all, if the above-mentioned rule VI Om. 22 forbids even eating alone with a relative, although she is above suspicion, much less living alone with her. Basil the Great says (in his book on virginity) that “carnal pleasure conquered even half-brothers themselves and invented every kind of sin with mothers and daughters. It dishonored David's son, Amnon, through the corruption of his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13). And all because,” says the saint, “that the attractive and magnetic power of love for women, which is naturally invested in the bodies of men, expels every right thought (for example, that this is a mother, or a sister, or an aunt) and spontaneously strives to combine the bodies of men with the bodies of women - be they strangers or relatives - despite the fact that the thoughts opposing inside do not want this” 14. It is most appropriate for all bishops of the metropolitan region to appoint a bishop. If this is difficult, either due to circumstances constraining them, or due to the distance of the journey, then at least three must gather in one place, provided that those absent give their consent by expressing it through letters, and then let the ordination take place. Approval of these actions must be granted in each region to its metropolitan. (Apost. 1; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19; Sardik. 6; Laodice. 12; Carthage. 12, 58, 59.) This rule determines that it is most fitting to ordain a bishop to all bishops of the region. If it is difficult for everyone to gather, either due to constraining circumstances or because of the distance of the journey, then at least three bishops should gather, and those who are absent should express their consent to the consecration through letters, and then the chosen one should be ordained. And the right to approve and sanction everything that is done, that is, to approve the choice already made by all the bishops, and to appoint one of the three elected (because according to church regulations three are elected, I mean the appointment of one, so that he receives notification of the consecration) must belong and be given to the metropolitan of each region as having the supreme power [15]. Since the interpreters of Zonar and Balsamon understand the word “to deliver” as “to choose,” and others as “to ordain,” we should know the following: first of all, and in the proper sense, “to be supplied” means “to become.” And “I supply” is used instead of “I do”, “I prescribe”. In this case, here too, the words “befits to supply” should be understood tentatively and in a general sense as “must be appointed, appointed, nominated” by everyone. And I said “in a general sense” and “preliminarily” because this appointment has its own sacred order: first one must elect, and then ordain. It is precisely this, more complete meaning that we mean by the fact that the chosen one “was installed,” that is, he became a bishop. So “to be ordained,” like “to become,” has two meanings: it means both “to be chosen” and “to be ordained.” The election is performed by all, and the ordination by three bishops, according to both the present canon and the Apostle. 1. The VII Ecumenical Council gave approximately the same explanation in its 3rd canon: while only three people ordain a bishop, he is first elected by everyone, with the consent of the absent, which they express in writing. Regarding those who have been deprived by bishops in each area of ​​ecclesiastical communion, whether they belong to the clergy or to the ranks of the laity, a judgment must be maintained in accordance with the rule that determines that those whom some have excommunicated should not be accepted by others. However, let it be examined that it was not because of a quarrel, or dissension, or any similar weakness of the bishop that they were excommunicated. So, in order to carry out a proper investigation, it was recognized as good to convene Councils twice a year every year in each metropolitan region, so that all the bishops of the region, having gathered together, jointly carried out similar investigations. And thus those who are generally recognized to have sinned before the bishop are all justifiably considered disfellowshipped until the bishops jointly decide to make a more lenient decision about them. Let the councils take place: one - before Pentecost, so that after the abolition of all disagreement a pure gift will be brought to God, and the second - around the autumn time. (Apost. 12, 13, 32, 37; IV Ecum. 19; VI Ecum. 8; Antioch. 6, 20; Carthage. 26, 37, 104, 116, 141.) This rule defines the following: regarding clergy and laity who have been excommunicated by the bishops of any region, let the judgment that has become law, as determined by the ancient rule (i.e., Apostle 32 or Apostle 12), be valid and remain unchanged, namely: those excommunicated by some bishops should not be accepted into communion by others. However, let it be investigated whether they fell under excommunication because of a quarrel, or dissension, or some other passion of the bishop. Therefore, in order for this and other similar questions to be investigated in an appropriate manner, it seemed reasonable in each metropolitan region to hold Local Councils twice a year and for all the bishops to gather together to consider these issues. After such an investigation, those who clearly sin against their bishop and are justly excommunicated by him, let them in turn be justly excommunicated by all other bishops until it seems necessary for the assembly of bishops to make a more lenient decision about these excommunicates. If, for example, the one who excommunicated them becomes embittered and, after a lapse of time, does not want to allow them to be excommunicated, or if he dies, then the Council has the right to release them from excommunication when it considers the duration of penance sufficient. Let these councils be convened: one - before Pentecost, so that after removing any disagreement and sin that either the bishop committed in relation to the clergy and the people, or, conversely, the clergy and people in relation to the bishop, the pure and immaculate gift of fasting is offered to God; and let the second one gather in the autumn. Let the ancient customs prevail in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all of them, since this is the custom of the bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and in other areas, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved. In general, let it be known that if anyone becomes a bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, the great Council has determined that he should not be a bishop. If the common choice of all, thorough and in accordance with the rule of the Church, is contradicted by two or three out of their own quarrel, let the opinion of the majority prevail. (Apost. 34; II Om. 2, 3; III Om. 8; IV Om. 28; VI Ose. 36; Antioch. 19; Carthage. 13.) This rule determines: the ancient customs of the three patriarchs must be preserved - first and foremost, of Alexandria; secondly, Antioch; then - the Roman one, which is spoken of indirectly and in general (this Council speaks specifically and separately about the Jerusalem Council in its 7th canon, and the Second Ecumenical Council speaks about the Constantinople Council in the 3rd canon). Namely, the Patriarch of Alexandria (whom the rule here calls a bishop, since the name of the patriarch has not yet entered into custom) [17] should have authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, just as the Patriarch of Rome maintained the same custom [18] of having authority and presidency over all Western bishops and metropolitans. In the same way, the Patriarch of Antioch should have authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Syria, Coelesyria, both Cilicia, Mesopotamia and all other dioceses subordinate to him [19]. However, this rule prescribes preserving not only the privileges of these patriarchs, but also the privileges of other regions and churches subordinate to the metropolitans: both those who are now patriarchs and autocephalous metropolitans who did not submit to the patriarchs then and do not submit to them now. Autocephalous are the metropolitans of Asia, Pontus, Thrace, Cyprus, Africa, etc. (Although others say that “other regions” the rule here indirectly refers to dioceses subordinate to two other patriarchs, Constantinople and Jerusalem, and only calls the patriarchs metropolitans, however, the first interpretation is more correct; see also: Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 117, 123.) Therefore, no matter of church government should be carried out without their consent. Since the greatest and most important of all church affairs is consecration, the rule accordingly adds: whoever becomes a bishop without the knowledge of his metropolitan, according to the definition of this great Council, should not be a bishop. (After all, even if the entire multitude of bishops has elected a bishop, nevertheless, the approval of the choice remains with the metropolitan. Whoever he approves becomes a bishop. See also the note to I Ecumenical 4.) If everyone jointly elects someone to be a bishop in accordance with church rules, and two or three begin to contradict - not for a good and fair reason, but because of ambition and stubbornness, then let the majority opinion win [ 20 ] , as determined by the rule of Antiochus. 19. And the rule is Carthage. 13 says: if from among those who made the choice and signed, anyone subsequently acts contrary to his consent and signature, he will deprive himself of the episcopal honor. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 34. Since the custom and ancient tradition of honoring Bishop Elia have been established, let him have the honor of maintaining his own dignity for the metropolis. (Apost. 34; II Om. 2, 3; III Om. 8; IV Om. 28; VI Ose. 36; Antioch. 19.) This rule is subject to two interpretations. On the one hand, Balsamon and the anonymous interpreter of the rules, with which some papists and Calvinists agree, interpret this way: since the ancient tradition and custom of honoring the bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem [21], was established, for the sake of the fact that the Lord was incarnated and suffered in this city and the saving sermon was spread by the sacred apostles from it throughout the world, then may the bishop of Aelia have the honor corresponding to the previous one, and in subsequent times, but only honor, without any power or dignity. For power and dignity must remain with the metropolis of Palestine, that is, with Caesarea, called Strato, [22] to which Jerusalem is said to be subject. Likewise, the 12th rule of the Council of Chalcedon determines that in those cities that, according to imperial charters, received the honor of metropolis, the bishops should be content with the honor alone, and the true metropolitans retain their own rights; In this way, Marcian honored Chalcedon, and Valentinian - Nicaea, as stated in the 13th act of the IV Ecumenical Council. On the other hand, Zonara and others believe that just as the previous rule gave privileges to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, or, better said, gave these privileges a new form (ἀνενέωσεν) 23, because it introduces them as a kind of innovation (the privileges of Rome were not renewed, since they remained intact and unshakable), and the present rule honored the Bishop of Jerusalem. In other words, the previous rule not only established the privileges and patriarchal honor for the named bishops, but also established the order in which this honor is bestowed: the Roman Patriarch is the first, the Patriarch of Alexandria is the second, the Patriarch of Antioch is the third. So the present rule not only confirmed the patriarchal honor for the bishop of Jerusalem, but also determined the order according to which this honor would be bestowed. Therefore, it is not said: “let him have honor,” but “let him have the succession of honor,” in other words, let him be revered fourth after three. And the words that the metropolis must maintain its own dignity clearly show that this same patriarchal honor is not personal and private (about which see note 17 (note to I Om. 6)), but granted to the metropolis of Jerusalem, which is why it passes to everyone who at one time became the successor to the throne, and not just to one or another. The fact that Jerusalem was a metropolis is testified by Joseph, who in the 7th book. about the Jewish war calls it “a great city and the main city (μητρόπολις) of the entire Jewish people” 24. Philo’s words also testify: “...The main city (μητρόπολις) not only of Judea, but also of many other lands” 25. After all, the apostolic see in Jerusalem not only presides over almost the entire universe, but from the very beginning also had and has a patriarchal privilege. Firstly, because he had subordinate metropolitan areas and a diocese related to the patriarch. That is why the neighboring primates of the Churches, and not the primate of Caesarea, elected Dius of Jerusalem after Narkissus retired. But when Narcissus reappeared, it was his brothers who called him again, according to Eusebius 26, and not just one brother or the primate of Caesarea. Narcissus convened a Council of fourteen bishops on the issue of Easter before the First Ecumenical Council. Secondly, because the Bishop of Jerusalem at the First Ecumenical Council put his signature first, and Eusebius of Caesarea fifth. And generally speaking, metropolitans at the Councils and their signatures in acts and appeals to autocrats occupy different places: sometimes they come first, sometimes they are placed after others. The Bishop of Jerusalem is always the first among the Fathers of the Council; He is always among the patriarchs and never among the metropolitans. Read Dositheus in the Twelve Books, ch. 4 books 2. And even if we admit that Jerusalem was subject to Caesarea, then so what? Byzantium was initially subordinate to Heraclius, and after Byzantium became a patriarchate, Heraclius began to submit to him. In the same way, even if we admitted (which we do not) that Jerusalem was subject to Caesarea, after Jerusalem received the honor of being a patriarchate, Caesarea retained its dignity. It continued to be the metropolis of Palestine, but occupied a lower place than Jerusalem: after all, it is only a metropolis, and Jerusalem is a patriarchy. Regarding those who once called themselves pure, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the holy and great Council decided that after laying hands on them they should remain in the clergy. But first of all, they must confess in writing that they agree with the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and will follow them, that is, they will be in communion with both the second-weds and those who fell during the persecution, for whom both the time has been established and the term has been appointed, so that they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church in everything. So, where - in villages or cities - all those in the clergy find themselves ordained only from them, let them remain in the same rank. If some join where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, then it is clear that the bishop of the Church will have episcopal dignity, and the one who is called a bishop among the so-called pure will have presbyteral honor, unless the bishop wishes that he participate in the honor of the name of the bishop. If this is not pleasing to him, let him find a place for him, either a chorebishop or a presbyter, so that it can be seen in everything that he is a member of the clergy, but so that there are not two bishops in the city. (Apost. 46, 47, 68; II Om. 7; VI Oz. 95; Laodice. 7, 8; Carthage. 66; Basil the Great. 1, 47; Theophilus Alexander. 12; VII Oz. 14; Ancyra. 13; Neocesar. 14; Antioch. 8, 10; Sardik. 6; Laodice. 57; Basil the Great. The Novatians are called pure [27]. Novatus was a presbyter of the Roman Church 28. He did not accept those who renounced during persecution, but those who repented, and also did not enter into communication with second-weds and said that a sinner after baptism can no longer be pardoned, according to Epiphanius (chapter on heresy 59) 29 and Augustine (section on heresy 38). Thus, although he did not sin in the dogmas of the faith and was not a heretic, but only a schismatic, according to the 1st rule of Basil the Great, however, for his brotherly hatred, as well as for his unmerciful and arrogant disposition, according to Eusebius, he was anathematized by the Council held in Rome under Pope Cornelius, as well as by the Councils that were against him in Carthage under Cyprian, in Antioch and Italy 30. The followers of his slander, the Novatians, also received their name from Novatus. Taking all this into account, the present rule says that if such Novatians join the Catholic Church, it seems necessary to lay hands on them [ 31 ] and so accept; and let them remain in the clergy - of course, those who are clerics even in the schism (the same rule of Carthage 66 commands the reception of Donatists through the laying on of hands). But in addition, they must confess in writing that they undertake to preserve all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, will accept remarried people and those who have renounced Christ under compulsion, and will show them leniency in view of the period of penitential rule assigned to them for those who renounced. And even then, wherever they are, in cities or villages, let them remain in the clergy and in the rank to which each is ordained, that is, let the bishop remain a bishop, the presbyter - a presbyter, and the deacon - a deacon. The bishop, however, may remain such where there is no Orthodox bishop of the Catholic Church. But if there is an Orthodox bishop in the same Church, let him have the dignity, fullness of action and the name of a bishop, and let the former Novatian bishop have only presbyteral honor. The only exception is if an Orthodox bishop wishes him to have the honor and only the name of a bishop [32]. But then the latter should not perform any sacred act as a bishop, lest this entail an inappropriate consequence, namely, that there should not be two bishops in the same city (for which see Apost. 35 and Dvukrat. 16) [33]. And if the Orthodox bishop does not want this, then he must allow the former Novatian bishop to occupy the place of chorebishop [34] or presbyter, so that he too will be numbered among the clergy and clergy and so that he will not be completely excluded from the clergy. If some were promoted to elders without testing or confessed their sins during testing [35], but, despite their confession, a person went against the rule and laid hands on them, the rule does not allow such people to perform sacred rites. For the Catholic Church demands integrity. (Apostle 25, 61; Neo-Caesar. 9, 10; Theophilus Alexander. 3, 5, 6.) This rule specifies that those who are about to be ordained must be clean from sins that would bar the priesthood, and that their lives and conduct must be tested. If some became presbyters without testing or, during testing, confessed their sins, which are an obstacle to the priesthood, but the bishops who tested them went against the rules and ordained them priests, then these unworthily consecrated ones are not allowed to perform sacred rites. After they are denounced by others or they themselves confess sins that serve as an obstacle to the priesthood and which they committed before ordination, they are cast out, according to Balsamon and Zonara, or cease to serve as priests, according to the anonymous interpreter of the rules. The rule also names the reason why those who have fallen into sin are not admitted to the priesthood: for, it says, the Catholic Church urgently demands that priests be blameless, that is, those who cannot be reproached for sins. Paul commands the bishop to be like this, saying: A bishop must be blameless (1 Tim. 3:2), that is, not only free from accusations, but also completely blameless and blameless [36]. In accordance with this rule and the rule of Neokesar. 9 defines it by saying: “If a presbyter, before ordination, sins by the sin of carnal intercourse and after ordination confesses it, let him no longer officiate.” In the same way, a deacon, if, having committed such a sin, confesses it after his ordination, he should only occupy the place of a minister, according to the 10th rule of the same Council. And the 3rd canon of Theophilus says that an elder who, out of ignorance, is unworthily ordained and exposed after ordination, is expelled from the priesthood. Likewise, a deacon, installed unworthily, is ejected, according to the 5th rule of the same Theophilus. His 6th rule says the same thing. And all sins for which one is cast out from the priesthood, if they are committed after taking the priesthood, will equally entail casting out if they were committed before taking the priesthood and were either exposed or confessed after. However, they not only entail eruption, but also prevent one from becoming a priest. If some of those who fell were promoted to the clergy, either out of ignorance or with the knowledge of those who made them, this does not weaken the power of the church rule. When this becomes known, these are subject to eruption. (Apost. 62; Ankyr. 1, 3, 12; Petra Alexander. 10.) Those who fell, that is, denied our Lord Jesus Christ [37], and then repented, do not become priests. Is it really possible to become a priest for someone who, according to the rules, is forbidden to partake of the Divine Mysteries until his death? That is why the present rule says: if some of the apostates were ordained either because the ordaining bishop did not know about their abdication, or because, although he knew, he neglected it or considered that ordination could, like baptism, cleanse them (according to Balsamon’s interpretation), such ordination, whether out of ignorance or with knowledge, in no way weakens the church rule and does not prevent him from prohibiting them in sacred rite, not at all! But as soon as it is discovered that they are ordained in this way, they are ejected. However, those who before baptism made sacrifices to idols, after baptism can become priests as having been washed, according to the rule of Ankyr. 12. And those who suffered torment, were thrown into prison, took incense into their hands with violence and coercion, or ate sacrificial food, if otherwise their life was good, are promoted to clergy, according to the 3rd rule of the same Council. Pay attention to the fact that not only those who renounced before ordination and then those who were ordained are cast out, but also those who renounced after ordination; read the Apostle too. 62. To those who apostatized from the faith, not under duress, and not because of deprivation of property, and not because of danger or anything like that, as happened during the tyrannical reign of Licinius, the Council nevertheless deigned to show mercy, although they were unworthy of philanthropy. So, those who sincerely repent, let them spend three years among those who listen, as the faithful, and seven years fall. For two years let them participate with the people in prayers without communion of the Holy Mysteries. (Ankyr. 6; Peter Alexander. 3; Basil the Great. 73, 81; Gregory Nis. 2.) Other rules talk about those who renounced the faith because of cruel violence and great coercion, but the present rule speaks about those who renounced not under force: those who apostatized from the faith in Christ without any coercion, or danger, or deprivation of their property, as was the case during the time of the tyrant Licinius [38], - such, I say, although they were unworthy of philanthropy and condescension, the Council nevertheless seemed necessary to provide mercy. So, those who truly and from the heart, and not falsely and deceitfully, repent of their perfect sin, will remain among the listeners for three years, that is, stand in the vestibule at the red and royal gates of the church and church to listen to the Holy Scriptures until the deacon says: “Depart from the catechumens.” After this they must leave. Then for seven years 39 they will fall down, that is, enter inside the church and stand behind the pulpit. And in this case, they must go out together with the catechumens, when the deacon says: “As for the catechumens, go out.” Finally, for another two years they will participate in prayer together with the people, i.e. stand at prayer with the faithful, and will not go out with the catechumens. However, they do not partake of the Divine Mysteries until two years have passed [40]. Those who renounced only because the tyrants threatened to subject them to torture, in other words, without coercion, are forbidden to partake of the Divine Mysteries for six years, according to Ankyr. 6. Those who renounced voluntarily, not because they suffered anything difficult, but only because of timidity and fear, if within four years they show worthy fruit of repentance, they will receive benefit from it, according to the 3rd rule of Peter Alexander. According to the 2nd rule of Gregory Nis., for one who voluntarily renounced Christ, his entire life serves as a time of repentance. He should not pray in church with the faithful and cannot partake of the Divine Mysteries at all. In the same way, Gregory’s brother, Vasily, prescribes the same thing in his 73rd rule: he who has renounced Christ must remain with those who weep all his life, that is, stand even outside the vestibule, on the porch of the church, and ask the people entering the church to pray to the Lord for him. In his 81st rule, Basil the Great says: those who renounced without special coercion, ate the demonic meal and took pagan oaths, are excommunicated for three years, and after another eight years receive communion [41]. In order for you, the reader, to better imagine where there were places for those crying, listening, falling and standing together, we have drawn a plan at the end of this book, that is, an image of the church - examine it diligently. And Sozomen talks about those who mourn and, in general, about all those who repent in the 16th chapter. Book 7: “From the very beginning, the priests decided that it was inconvenient for penitents to announce their sins in church in the presence of people, as in a theater with a witness. Therefore, they appointed a presbyter from among those living in the best way, silent and prudent, when they came to whom sinners confessed what they had done.”42 And he also says: “In the Roman Church there is a known place for penitents... So, the penitents stand there sad and mournful, and, after the Divine Liturgy ends, these unfortunates, without receiving communion, fall prostrate to the ground weeping and sobbing. Rushing straight towards them, the bishop himself similarly falls to the ground with tears and lamentations, and with them the whole multitude of people is shed in tears. Then the bishop gets up first, raises the repentant and, having prayed to God about their sins, absolves them, and they leave” 43 [44]. Those who were called by grace showed the first impulse of zeal and put aside their military belts, and after that they returned like dogs to their vomit 45 (so that some even used silver and with benefits achieved that they were again included in the army), after three years of hearing, let ten years fall. However, in relation to all of them, their disposition and manner of repentance should be taken into consideration. Namely: those who prove their conversion through fear, tears, patience and good deeds - by deed, and not by appearance - let them, after completing a certain time of hearing, take part in prayers, as they should. At the same time, the bishop is allowed to treat them more humanely. But those who remained indifferent and considered that external entry into the Church was enough for them to convert, let them perform penance all the time. (Petra Alexander. 9, 11; VI Om. 102; Ancyra. 2, 5, 7; Laodice. 1, 2; Basil the Great. 2, 3, 74, 84; Gregory Nis. 4, 5, 7, 8.) Obviously, this rule also speaks of Christian warriors who lived during the time of Licinius. It makes the following determination. Some Christian soldiers, called and strengthened by Divine grace, first showed nobility and desire for martyrdom and threw away their belts, which were the distinctive sign of their military rank, and after that they returned like dogs to their own vomit. In other words, they changed their way of thinking and renounced their faith, so that some of them even gave money and, through benefices, that is, various gifts and services (since this is what the Latin word used means), again achieved their former military rank. Such, I say, after they have spent three years in the place reserved for those who listen, let them spend ten years in the place for those who fall. In other words, let them enter the church, but leave it together with the catechumens. In addition to all this, the bishop and spiritual father should test the will of these renouncers, as well as the manner of their repentance and their disposition towards it [46]. For those who repent with the fear of God, propitiate God with tears and contrition, endure sorrows, perform good deeds, for example, alms and other virtues and, generally speaking, repent truly and sincerely, and not hypocritically and only out of appearances - such, after they have completely spent the indicated three years with those who listen, are with sufficient grounds admitted to prayer together with the faithful and do not leave the church. The bishop, in addition to this condescension, is free to show them even greater philanthropy and mercy. And those who repent with indifference and carelessness and believe that for repentance it is enough to apparently enter the church along with those who fall and leave again with the catechumens, let them fully fulfill both the three-year penance of listening and the ten-year penance [47]. The following rules also say that, depending on the repentance and zeal of the penitents, they should be given proportionate leniency in penances: Ankir. 2,5,7; Laodice. 1, 2; VI Universe 102; Vasily Velik. 2, 3, 74, 84; Gregory Nis. 4, 5, 7, 8. In addition, the 29th canon of Nicephorus the Confessor says that if a layman of his own free will confesses his inclinations, the confessor can apply oikonomia to him. Read also the 9th and 11th rules of Peter Alexander. Let the ancient canonical law regarding those who are at the end of life be observed today: if someone departs, do not deprive him of the last and most necessary [48] parting words. If, being in a hopeless situation and having received communion, he returns to life again, let him be only together with those participating in prayer. In general, to everyone who departs, no matter who he is, and asks to partake of the Eucharist, let the bishop give the offering with testing. After these divine fathers made a determination about penance and how and for how long apostates should remain excommunicated from communion with Christ, now, in this canon, they determine: in relation to those apostates who are in danger of dying, the ancient canonical law should be observed (which, obviously, was the 6th canon of the Council of Ancyra, which preceded the First Ecumenical Council) about not depriving the one who is at the point of death, perfect and final parting words, most necessary for this path and departure. And this parting word is the communion of the Divine Mysteries [49]. However, if someone who is near death after receiving communion remains alive and recovers, let him only stand with the faithful and participate in prayer, but not receive communion. And Balsamon notes that the one about whom the rule speaks here was one of those standing together, therefore he is ordered to remain in his place again. If he had been in the listening place, he should have returned there. Simply put, what penance everyone exposed to this danger bore before communion, to which he should return after communion [50]. And, let’s say together with the catholic and general rule, every person who is in danger of dying and asks to partake of the Divine Eucharist, a bishop or even a spiritual father, after testing, must teach the Divine Mysteries. Gregory of Nyssa says exactly the same in his 5th rule, and the rule of Ancyr. 6, as we have already said, considering the question of those who renounced only because of threats, adds: in the event that these people find themselves near death, let them be accepted into the communion of the Divine Mysteries. However, this comes with a caveat: if they recover, they will have to return again to the place for penitents where each of them was before the communion was given out of need. Concerning the catechumens and the fallen [51], the holy great Council decided that they should remain listening only for three years, and after that they should pray with the catechumens. (Neo-Caesar. 5; Laodice. 19; Basil the Great. 20; Timothy Alexander. 6; Cyril Alexander. 5.) The catechumens are so called from the word “to announce,” which means “through the word to teach beginners the faith,” since they were announced and taught the dogmas of the Orthodox faith. The catechumens were divided into two ranks. The first was more perfect and was called the rite of kneeling. Such catechumens had already accepted the faith, but only postponed baptism. Therefore, they entered the church before the prayer for the catechumens (according to Laodicecus 19), which was said secretly and during which the priest laid his hand on the catechumens who were kneeling. When the cry was proclaimed: “Elites of the catechumen, come out,” they left the church. The second rank was less perfect and was called “listeners.” These catechumens stood in the vestibule in front of the royal doors, listened to the Divine Scriptures, and after listening to the Divine Gospel they came out, as the Blastarus says, as well as the interpreter Armenopulos in the “Summary of the Rules” (section 5, tit. 3). The place where these two ranks should stand is clearly indicated on the plan of the church that we have drawn. And Cardinal Bona (in the 1st book on the liturgy) and some others include two more orders among these two orders, taking information about them from the Western fathers. These two orders were called applicants (because they sought baptism) and elect, who received this name after they were included in the list of those who should receive baptism. Latest 7th chapter. 8th book. “Apostolic Constitutions” 52 and Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechumens are called enlightened. And as for those who are baptized, Chapter 8 mentions them. the same book of “Regulations” 53 and the 6th rule of Timothy Alexander [54]. So, after these clarifications, let's return to this rule. It says that it seemed reasonable to the holy and great Council that those catechumens of the first and perfect order, who had renounced the faith, should stand for three years in the second and imperfect order of catechumens, listening to the Scriptures in the vestibule, and after these three years they should pray together with the first and more perfect order of catechumens in the church. But one can rightly be perplexed: why do the Councils punish the catechumens in this way if they have sinned, and the Great Basil in his 20th canon says: “Absolutely everything that happened in the life of the catechumen is not tortured”? To resolve this apparent contradiction, it should be said, together with Zonara, that Basil the Great does not say that the catechumens should not be punished if they sinned before baptism (for it would contradict the conciliar rules), but that the sins of the catechumens do not lead to responsibility, that is, to punishment after baptism, since through baptism they already receive forgiveness not only for what they did while being catechumens, but also what they did before they became catechumens, in other words, when they were in unbelief. The catechumens are subject to punishment because, although in fact they are not yet in the Church and are not its actual members, they are nevertheless in the Church by desire, disposition and strength of soul. After all, according to the expression of the Theologian (in the word on Lights), the catechumens are on the threshold of piety and are conceived in faith, although they have not yet been born through baptism 55 . Therefore, they are not completely deprived of hope of salvation in the event that, due to insurmountable circumstances, they are unable to accept baptism before death, as can be seen from the funeral oration pronounced by the divine Ambrose on the death of King Valentinian, who died while still a catechumen. So, therefore, the Councils punish the catechumens as already their own, who have accepted the faith and are called Christians, and that the law says to them, as it says to those under the law, according to the expression of the Apostle (Rom. 3:19). Due to many confusions and disagreements, it was decided to completely abolish the custom, which arose in some places contrary to the apostolic rule, so that no bishop, no presbyter, no deacon would move from city to city. If anyone, after this determination of the holy and great Council, does something similar or allows something like this to be done to himself, what he has done will be completely invalid, and the one who has transferred will be returned to the church in which he was ordained a bishop or presbyter 56 . (Apost. 14, 15; IV Ose. 6; Antioch. 3, 21; Sardik. 1, 16; Carthage. 57) This rule defines the following. It seemed necessary to completely abolish that custom, which was invented in some places contrary to the establishment and legal provisions of the apostolic rule (i.e., Apostle 14, as well as Apostle 15), in view of the many turmoil and civil strife that followed this violation. Namely, to arrange so that neither the bishop, nor the presbyter, nor the deacon moves from one city to another. If, after the present rule of this holy Council, anyone tries to commit such an act and moves from one city to another, then let the transition he has undertaken be completely invalid, and the bishop, presbyter or deacon must be returned to the church for which he was ordained. Because not only bishops, but also elders and deacons must be ordained for a specific church, and not without a specific purpose, according to IV Ecumenical. 6. Those who recklessly, having neither the fear of God before their eyes, nor knowing the church rule, move away from their Church - presbyters, deacons, or generally ranked among the clergy (τῷ κανὸνι) - should under no circumstances be accepted into another Church, but should be forced in every possible way to return to their parishes; or, if they remain stubborn, it is appropriate to deprive them of church fellowship. If someone dares to kidnap someone belonging to another and ordain him in his Church without the consent of his bishop, from whom the one belonging to the clergy left, let this ordination be invalid. The previous rule determines that elders and deacons must be returned to the Church in which they were ordained, and the present rule imposes on such a ban on ministry if in no way can they be persuaded to return. The rule says: elders, or deacons, or those counted among the clergy [57], who, without fearing God and not knowing the church rule (i.e. Apostle 15), recklessly move away from the Church in which they received ordination, should in no case be accepted into another Church (of course, in the absence of representative and dismissal letters), but they should be forced to return to their own. If they continue to persist, then they should be excommunicated not from the Sacraments and not from the faithful laity in the Church (for otherwise this rule would contradict Apostle 15, which does not excommunicate such from communion with the laity in the Church), but from co-presbyters and co-deacons who have the same rank as them. In other words, they cannot serve with initiates, but must remain prohibited. If any bishop dares to treacherously kidnap another clergyman, subordinate to another bishop, and ordain him (obviously to a higher rank) in his Church without the consent of the bishop from whom the cleric left, let such ordination be invalid. Since many of those numbered among the clergy, driven by covetousness and covetousness, forgot the Divine Scripture, which says: He did not lend his silver at interest (Ps. 14:5), and, when lending, they demand hundredths, then the holy and great Council judged: if it turns out that after this definition anyone charges interest on what was loaned, or otherwise arranges this matter, or demands half the increase, or generally invents anything else for the sake of shameful gain, then let him be ejected from the clergy and expelled from the rank of clerics. (Apost. 44; VI Ose. 10; Laodice. 4; Carthage. 5, 20; Basil the Great. 14.) Various rules, like the present one, prohibit taking interest on money. It says: since many canons, that is, clergy, having loved covetousness and covetousness, have forgotten the psalm saying of David, which says: “I did not lend my money at interest” (we are talking about the righteous man who will dwell in the holy mountain of the Lord 58, and by it is meant the Kingdom of Heaven), but by lending, they seek to receive from their debtors hundredths [59], that is, twelve coins per hundred (this increase was the heaviest compared to the others), then this holy and great Council considered the following to be right. If it turns out that after this rule, any cleric takes interest or is contemplating some enterprise for collecting growth or other turnover (namely, wanting to hide the fact that he takes interest, gives money to those in need and agrees to share with them the income and profit from this money, calling himself not a lender, but an accomplice and partner), - so, if it turns out that someone does this, or demands half the increase (i.e. half a hundred's worth: six coins instead of twelve, which are a full percent of a hundred), or invents something similar for the sake of shameful gain, may he be expelled from the clergy and alienated from the rank of clerics. It came to the attention of the holy and great Council that in some places and cities deacons teach the Eucharist to the presbyters, while neither rule nor custom commanded that those who do not have the power to make the offering should teach the Body of Christ to those who offer it. It has also become known that some of the deacons touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. So, let all this be stopped, and let the deacons remain within their limits, knowing that they are servants of the bishop and lower than the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist in order, after the presbyters, from the bishop or presbyter who administers it to them. Moreover, let no deacons be allowed to sit among the elders, for this is contrary to rule and order. If anyone does not want to obey even after these determinations, let him be deprived of the diaconate. (VI Om. 7; Laodice. 20.) Decency must be maintained everywhere, especially among the clergy. Therefore, this rule corrects what is done inappropriately. It says: it has come to the ears of this holy and great Council that in some places and cities deacons administer the Divine Communion to the presbyters, which neither any written rule nor unwritten custom has conveyed - that is, that the Body of Christ should be taught to the officiating priests by deacons who do not have the authority to perform this sacrament [60]. In addition, it was also indicated that some of the deacons receive communion before the elders. So, let all these outrages be eliminated, and let the deacons remain within their own boundaries, that is, they do not administer the Eucharist to the priests and do not receive communion before them, knowing that they themselves are the servants of the bishop, as their very name shows, for “deacon” means “servant.” They are lower and less than elders, but the lesser is blessed by the greater, as the apostle says (Heb. 7:7), and not vice versa. Let them receive the Divine Eucharist in order, after the presbyters have received communion, from the bishop or (if there is no bishop) the presbyter who administers it to them. Deacons are also not allowed to sit among the elders, since this is also disorderly and contrary to the rule, for it indicates that deacons are equal in honor to elders, but this is not so. If, after this rule, any deacon does not obey, let him be deprived of his diaconate. In accordance with this rule, the VI General makes a determination and rule. 7. It prescribes that the deacon who, out of insolence, sits above the elders, is deposed from his rank and made last in his rank, even if he occupies any church position [61]. The only exception is when he goes to another city as a representative of his patriarch or metropolitan: then he should be revered more than the elders. Rule of Laodice. 20 says that the deacon should not sit down before the elder. And Rule 56 of the same Council prohibits priests from entering the altar and sitting down before the bishop enters. Pay attention to the fact that, according to Zonara and Balsamon, the 18th rule of this Council speaks of those deacons who sit above the presbyters in the altar during divine rites, and therefore imposes a more severe punishment on them, that is, deprives them of the priesthood. And rule VI Omni. 7 speaks of those who sit above the elders, not in the church, but in meetings outside the altar, and therefore punishes them more mildly, simply by removing them from their place. Regarding the former Paulians, who later turned to the Catholic Church, a decree was made: they must be rebaptized. If some in the past were numbered among the clergy, then, if they prove blameless and blameless, after rebaptism, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. If, during testing, their inability to do this is revealed, they should be cast out. In the same way, let this decree be observed in relation to deaconesses, and in general those ranked among the clergy. We mentioned deaconesses, who are classified as such by their attire, since they do not have any ordination and, therefore, in all respects can be classified as laity. (Apost. 47; I Om. 2; VI Ose. 95; Laodice. 7, 8; Carthage. 66.) (IV Om. 15; VI Om. 14, 40; Basil the Great. 44; Carthage. 6, 51, 135.) This rule makes a determination about those who were born in the heresy of Paul of Samosata [62], but then resorted to the Catholic Church. It says: a rule and decree was adopted to unconditionally rebaptize such heretics (note that the Council calls Pauline baptism baptism not in the proper sense and not for its own sake, but comparing it with our baptism, and uses the verb “rebaptize,” i.e., “to baptize a second time”; see also the preface to the rule of the Council of Carthage under Cyprian), since these heretics were not baptized in this way, like the Orthodox. If some of them were consecrated and became clergy before Orthodox baptism (because the bishops who consecrated them did not know that they were heretics), or they accepted consecration in the Pauline clergy, then, after they are rebaptized with Orthodox baptism, if their life turns out to be impeccable and impeccable [63], let them accept consecration from the bishop Catholic and Orthodox Churches, since their previous consecration, which they accepted as heretics, is not considered consecration at all. Is it really possible for someone who has not been baptized in accordance with the Orthodox faith to receive the descent of the Holy Spirit and grace at ordination? If, upon examination, it turns out that they are unworthy of the priesthood, they should be cast out, that is, expelled from the clergy. The word “eruption” is used here not in the proper sense, but instead of the word “exception,” since in the proper sense the one who was previously elevated to the heights of the priesthood and clergy is erupted. And from what rank should we cast out those who did not accept consecration at all? Of course, none. Or perhaps the rule says that they should be ejected from the priesthood and clergy of the Paulians, because just as it called what was performed among them baptism, so it called what existed among them clergy, and hence “eruption.” Likewise is the rule of Laodice. 8 what is established by the Montanists is called clergy. Everything that we have said about men should be observed in exactly the same way in relation to women: if any Pauline women were ordained as deaconesses by the Orthodox bishop, not knowing about their heresy, or they were ordained to the rank of deaconesses by the Paulians, let them be rebaptized and, if after baptism they prove worthy of this service, let them also accept consecration as deaconesses (see also Apost. 46, 47 and II Ev. 7). The addition to the rule: “We mentioned the deaconesses who are classified as such by their attire, since they do not have any ordination and, therefore, in all respects can be classified as laymen,” - although it is unclear, its general meaning is as follows: we especially mentioned the deaconesses who received this attire from the Paulians, i.e., the title of deaconesses, since they, like other clergy, peacock, should be recognized by the laity. Just as those clergy did not have consecration, being deprived of Divine grace, so their deaconesses only had the attire of deaconesses, but did not have consecration, true and bestowing grace. This means that after baptism they should be recognized as laymen, as they were before. Rule VI Universal. 95, in exactly the same way as the present canon, says: “It was determined to rebaptize the Paulineists, that is, those who from birth adhered to the heresy of Paul.” Rule IV Universal. 15 commands that a deaconess be ordained at the age of forty (VI Ev. 14:40 also say the same thing), and anathematizes one who, after spending some time in the ministry [64], then got married. 44th rule of Vasily the Great. a deaconess who commits fornication with a pagan is excommunicated from the sacraments for seven years, but does not deprive her of prayer and communication with the faithful. 2nd resolution 1st title. “Novel” (in Photius tit. 8, ch. 14) says that it is not appropriate for a deaconess to live with someone who can be suspected of indecent behavior. If, after the bishop orders her to remove this man and not live with him, she postpones this for a while, then she will be deprived of ministry and imprisoned in a monastery for life. Read also the note. to Apost. 47. Since some kneel on Sunday and on the days of Pentecost, in order for everything to be observed equally in each episcopal region, it pleased the Holy Council that prayers be offered to God while standing. (VI Om. 90; Petra Alexander. 15.) The customs handed down by the apostles and holy fathers must be observed by all and by all Churches, and not just by some and by some Churches. Therefore, this rule determines: since some Christians kneel both on Sunday and on the days from Easter to Pentecost, which is against the rules and inappropriate - henceforth, in order for all the Orthodox Churches of the universe to observe all the apostolic and patristic traditions (one of which is not to kneel on Sunday and during the entire Pentecost), this Holy Council considered it appropriate that all Christians on these days offer their prayers to God not kneeling, but standing straight. Rule VI Universal. 90, speaking of the same thing, also determines the time when kneeling should be stopped, namely: after the priests enter the altar at Vespers on Saturday; as well as the time when they should be renewed - after the entrance of the priests, which occurs during the prayer of the lamp at Sunday Vespers 65, or, in other words, from one evening to the next. 15th Rule of Peter Alexander. also says: “On Sunday, according to tradition, we do not bend the knee.” And Basil the Great in the 27th chapter. “On the Holy Spirit,” which is his 91st canon, not only says that we should not bend the knee on the day of the Lord and Pentecost, but also indicates the basis and reasons why we do not do this: “On Sunday we pray standing [66] not only because on this day we have been resurrected with Christ and must seek the things above and in heaven, but also because the day of the Lord is the image and sign of the coming age, the same one in which all will find themselves resurrected. Therefore he, being the beginning of days, is called Moses not the first, but one; he is also the eighth. This day represents that truly eighth day that will come after the completion of this septenary age. And during the entire Pentecost - because it is also a remembrance of the resurrection expected in the coming age - we also pray standing, so that through the erect position of the body we can transfer our mind from the present age to the future. In agreement with Basil the Great, the divine Justin also says in response to the 115th question: “The fact that we do not bend the knee on the Lord’s Day is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we were freed from sin and death by the grace of Christ. And on Pentecost we do not kneel, since it is equivalent to the Day of the Lord - and this is also a remembrance of the resurrection. Such a custom, says Justin, originates from the times of the apostles, as stated by the blessed one. Irenaeus, martyr and bishop of Lugdunum, in his word on Easter" 67. And the divine Epiphanius confirms that genuflection is not performed during the entire Pentecost 68. Saint Augustine says the same thing in his letter to Iannuarius, and Jerome in his discourse against the Luciferians, and the divine Ambrose, and Tertullian. In addition, 1st rule of Theophilus Alexander. determines to honor and celebrate every Sunday: it is both the first day, as the beginning of life, and the eighth, since it surpassed the Jewish Sabbath, which is the seventh day. Please note that the rule is Carthage. 56 says that among everything considered and approved in Nicaea, a written rule was approved and established: priests should celebrate the liturgy on an empty stomach, but in these rules of the Council of Nicaea this is nowhere to be found 69 . I find four distinctive features of the Ecumenical Councils in various places in many works, and especially in Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 1018). Of these, three are indirect and coincide with the features of some Local Councils, and one is the most important and, one might say, essential, fundamental and distinctive feature of all Ecumenical Councils. The first sign of all Ecumenical Councils is that they must meet according to the orders not of the pope or any patriarch, but of the emperors. This feature belonged to both the Local Council in Sardica, which was convened by Constantius and Constantius, and the Council in Antioch, also convened by order of Constantius, although for a different purpose - for the consecration of the church in Antioch (Dositheus. Twelve Books, p. 133). The second sign is that the Council must be convened to consider issues of faith and, therefore, at each of the Ecumenical Councils a resolution and a dogmatic definition must be made (Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 633). But this feature is also inherent in some Local Councils, for example, the Council in Carthage, which, having examined the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius, set out dogmatic definitions. The third sign is that all dogmas and rules set forth by the Councils must be Orthodox, pious and in agreement with the Divine Scriptures or previous Ecumenical Councils. That is why the statement of St. Maxim on this matter: “The Councils that have taken place are given strength by pious faith” and also: “The correctness of the dogmas confirms the Councils.” However, this feature is also characteristic of most Local Councils, with the exception of a few. The fourth and final sign is that all Orthodox patriarchs and bishops of the Catholic Church must agree with the resolutions and rules of the Ecumenical Councils and accept them, being present at the Council either personally or through their representatives, and in the absence of the latter, expressing agreement by their letters. This agreement of the patriarchs and bishops of the universe, as we have said, constitutes the fundamental and distinctive feature of the Ecumenical Councils. Fundamental because it creates Councils and assigns them the name Ecumenical, and distinctive because it is not seen in any Local Council and distinguishes only Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, the Council, which took place under Copronymus in Blachernae and was called the Ecumenical Council by the iconoclasts, was also condemned by St. Herman, and Damascene, and Stephen the New, and many others, as well as the VII Ecumenical Council in the 6th act. They said that without the consent of all the other patriarchs, the Ecumenical Council could neither exist nor be called Ecumenical. Thus, Epiphanius, on behalf of the VII Ecumenical Council, said: “How great and Ecumenical is it [the Council of Blachernae], if the primates of the other Churches did not accept it and did not agree with it, but anathematized it?” (Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 634). Almost in the same words, St. Maximus denounced the false council of the Monothelite Pyrrhus, who considered this council to be Ecumenical (Maximus Conf. Disp. Pyr. // PG 91, 352CD). I said that Ecumenical Councils are created by the consent and approval of all the patriarchs, and not by their personal presence alone or the presence of their representatives. For the popes were not present in person at any of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and at the Second and V Councils there were neither Popes Damasus and Vigilius themselves, nor their representatives; nevertheless, these Ecumenical Councils remained Ecumenical, because the absent popes expressed their agreement with the definitions of the Councils, approved them in letters and signed the definitions. And the fact that Ecumenical Councils are created not only by personal presence or the presence of representatives, but much more by agreement, was shown by the example of two Councils, I am talking about the Sardician and the Florentine. Although the Sardician Council was at first called Ecumenical (see about this in the preface to it) and all the patriarchs were present at it, some in person, others through their representatives, but since the Eastern patriarchs and bishops separated and did not agree with its resolutions, to that extent it, at first Ecumenical, in its result and ending became Local. Similarly, the Council in Florence, although it was called Ecumenical, but due to the fact that the representative of the Patriarch of Antioch, the bishops of the East, and above all - the Patriarch of Alexandria himself, His Holiness Mark of Ephesus (the representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria was Anthony of Heraclius, of Antioch - Mark of Ephesus, of Jerusalem - Dionysius of Sardica, and after his death Dorotheus of Monemvasia) did not agree with him, he from Vselensky turned into Local. What's there in Pomestny? In fairness, he turned to a false council, because he did not have the third sign of Ecumenical Councils: his definition did not agree with the Divine Scripture and other Councils. Do you see how the disagreement of one of the patriarchs makes the Ecumenical Councils Local? And on the contrary, the consent of all the patriarchs of the universe transforms Local Councils into Ecumenical and Catholic Councils. For this reason, Local Councils and their rules, adopted by Ecumenical Councils (mainly the VIth), receive ecumenical, otherwise catholic, power and dignity. According to what has been said, it is not difficult to define an Ecumenical Council: An Ecumenical Council is a Council that was convened by order of the emperor, issued a dogmatic definition of faith, its decisions are pious, Orthodox and agree with the Holy Scriptures and previous Ecumenical Councils. It must be unanimously accepted by all the patriarchs and bishops of the Catholic Church, being present at the Council either personally, or through their representatives, or, if they were absent, by expressing their consent in letters with signatures. So, each Ecumenical Council, which has these distinctive features, is the Holy and Catholic Church itself, in which we believe, which is expressed in the Creed. For this reason, according to theologians, the Ecumenical Council acquires four other properties. Firstly, eternal power and immutability, for it is said: And he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever (John 14:16); and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). Secondly, infallibility and infallibility, for the Church, whose face is represented by the Ecumenical Council, is the pillar and affirmation of the truth, according to St. Paul (1 Tim. 3:15), and therefore the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are equivalent to the decisions of the Holy Spirit of truth, for it is said: He will teach you everything and remind you of everything (John 14:26), which is true especially for the Ecumenical Councils. For if the 8th canon of Gregory the Wonderworker says about the Local Council of Ancyra: “Until the holy fathers, and before them the Holy Spirit, decide something by coming together,” then how much more is said true for the Ecumenical councils? The Holy Spirit Himself stands at their head, enlightens them and does not allow them to be mistaken in their decisions, because God instills His truth in the countless priests gathered at the Council, as evidenced by the message of the Council of Carthage to Celestine. Thirdly, it becomes the greatest and highest authority not only in offering what is just and true as advice, but also in forcing those who oppose them into submission, assigning them appropriate ecclesiastical penances, as well as judging and investigating the cases of popes, and patriarchs, and bishops, clergy and laity throughout the universe. And fourthly, the Ecumenical Council makes determinations and decisions on all emerging issues and matters, both general and private, and resolves all disputes and controversies of heretics and schismatics. For, according to Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Discourse 18), “The Church is called Catholic (Καθολική) because in full (καθόλου) and without omissions it teaches absolutely all the teaching about the visible and invisible that a person should know” (Cyr. Hieros. Catech. 18. 23 // PG 33, 1044AB). Therefore, everyone proclaims that the final judge in church affairs is not Divine Scripture, but the Ecumenical Council, according to the Second Ecumenical Council. 6, and the decision and opinion of this judge is not subject to appeal to another, higher court. If, according to 1st tit. 9th book. “Basilik”, an appeal claim is filed from any court to another, larger court, then the decision of the bishops, the correctness of which is doubtful, is subject to appeal at the highest Council of Metropolitans, the decision of the metropolitans - at the Council of the exarch or patriarch of the diocese, the decision of the patriarch - at the Ecumenical Council. And here any appeal reaches its limit, because there is no other, higher court than the court of the Ecumenical Council. If, according to the Basilicas and the decrees of Justinian and Leo the Wise, the court of the patriarchs is also not subject to appeal, then what is meant here is that one patriarch cannot judge the decision of another patriarch; however, this does not apply to the Ecumenical Council, which re-judges the decisions of all patriarchs and popes, as if they had not made any decision at all. Likewise, although the decision of the eparch is not subject to appeal (because it is not reviewed by anyone else), but, despite all this, those controversial issues that the eparch cannot resolve are considered and decided by the emperor himself. Thus, whatever power the autocrat has in the state, the Ecumenical Council has the same power in the Church (Dositheus. Twelve Books. pp. 309, 384). I said that the final judge in the Church is not the Divine Scripture, as the Lutherans and Calvinists claim, but the Ecumenical Council, because in many places the Divine Scripture is expressed unclearly and each of the heretics distorts the unclear meaning of the Scriptures in favor of their heresy, which means that in order to explain the true meaning of the Scriptures, interpretation is necessary, and the judge here is none other than the Ecumenical Council. In addition, along with the genuine and canonical books of Scripture, there are also counterfeit heretical books, which heretics dare to label as canonical. For this reason, the Ecumenical Council approves genuine books and rejects counterfeit and apocryphal ones, as this First Council did (see also note to Apostolic 60) and as the VI Ecumenical Council did with the “Apostolic Decrees.” That is why Saint Augustine, knowing this, accurately remarked: “I would not have believed in the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not prompted me to do so” (letter 154). From all that has been said, the conclusion follows that no one can resist the Ecumenical Councils while remaining pious and Orthodox, but in general everyone, without exception, is obliged to obey them. For he who opposes and resists them thereby opposes and resists the Holy Spirit Himself, speaking through the Ecumenical Councils, becomes a heretic and is anathematized, since Pope Gregory the Dvoeslov (Book 1, letter 24) anathematizes those who do not obey the Ecumenical Councils. And the Councils themselves anathematize those who do not obey them. Why is anyone recognized as a heretic - pagan and wicked who does not obey the Church, whose face is represented by the Ecumenical Council! For the Lord said: If he does not listen to the Church, then let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector (Matthew 18:17), since the Ecumenical Council is the final decision and judgment of the Church, according to Augustine (letter 162). God commanded the same thing to be observed by the council of priests of the Old Law: If, it is said, it will be difficult for you to judge a matter between blood and blood, and between judgment and judgment... And you will come to the priests of the Levites and to the judge who will be in those days, and, having examined, they will announce to you the decision... do not turn aside from the judgment that they will announce to you, neither to the right nor to the left. And the man who acts so arrogantly that he does not listen to the priest or the judge, let that man die, and destroy the evil one from Israel (Deut. 17:8-9,11-12). It is necessary to add to what has been said that only seven Councils were called Ecumenical in the proper sense, because they were all collected according to Ecumenical laws and determined everything that was necessary to know. Consequently, all issues that arise can be easily resolved on the basis of the decisions of these seven Councils (Dositheus, Twelve Books, p. 633). Despite the fact that after the VII Ecumenical Council other Councils were called Ecumenical (like the Double Council and the Council in the Church of Hagia Sophia), they were called so incorrectly, because none of them was convened according to the laws of the Ecumenical Councils, which means they cannot be counted among the seven Ecumenical Councils and increase their number. Thus, the Council, which the Latins called the VIII Ecumenical Council and which was convened to condemn Photius, was later rejected by the Council held in defense of Photius, and the first was decided not to even be called a Council. However, despite this, all seven Ecumenical Councils are of equal honor - due to the fact that they are Ecumenical. On the other hand, the first such Council, because of its antiquity and holiness, became and always remains the prototype and initial foundation of all Ecumenical Councils: it was imitated by all the Councils that followed it, both in proclamations, and in meetings, and in definitions. The Dvoeslov called him the head of all Councils, and on everyone’s lips there was one word: “Let the Nicene definitions be observed.” The Council of Carthage worked hard, which was expressed in its actions, and rules, and messages to Boniface and Celestine, so that other rules were not adopted other than these true rules of the Council in Nicaea. And Athanasius the Great and the divine Chrysostom solemnly proclaimed: “Let no other rules be observed except the rules of the Council of Nicaea.” During the First Ecumenical Council, Sylvester was Pope. The pontificate of Pope Julius was between 337 and 352. Wanting to avoid the hatred of the Orthodox, which Paul of Samosata aroused in them (who taught that the Son and Word of God born of the Virgin is a simple man), the Alexandrian presbyter Arius said that the Son existed before birth according to the flesh, however, not as God, but as one of the creatures and creations, since he was created by the Father in time. And about how many parties the Arian heresy was divided into, see the note. to II Omni. 1. It is currently believed that the First Ecumenical Council lasted three and a half months. Phot. Bibl. 256 // PG 104, 113A. Probably, a mistake was made here: in the indicated place we read that the Council lasted three and a half years. Please note that the word “consubstantial” was used by the pious before the First Ecumenical Council, but since, according to the divine Hilary, the Sabellians and supporters of Paul of Samosata used this word in order to abolish the Trinity of divine Hypostases, the 180 fathers who gathered against Paul in 272 in Antioch rejected this term, however only nominally (while they recognized both the meaning and significance contained in it). They did this in order not to give the heretics a foothold, because Paul philosophized that from the term “consubstantial” it follows that there are three essences. One is the original of the Father, the second of the Son and the third of the Holy Spirit, and from the first the last two must appear as cut off parts, according to Athanasius (Epistle against the Arian heresy) (see: Athanas. Alex. De synodis 45 // PG 26, 772C). And the Council of Nicaea, being Ecumenical in its dignity, determined that, proclaiming the word “consubstantial,” one must recognize not only the meaning contained in it, but also this term itself (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 1034). It was precisely this Council that proclaimed the Son and the Word of God to be consubstantial, and not co-essential, as the Semi-Arians insidiously said. Indeed, “one” (i.e., “identical”), according to Aristotle’s “Logic,” speaks of essence, and “similar” speaks of quality and, in general, accidents of essence, and not of essence and nature. And, in turn, it is said that He is consubstantial, and not co-essential, since, as the divine Epiphanius notes in the Ancoratus, “co-essence” (τὸ συνούσιον) means unity without any difference (as Sabellius asserted), and “consubstantial” means unity with difference and the origin of one Hypostasis from another (Epiph. Ancor. 6 // PG 43, 25BC). Note that this Nicene Symbol differs slightly in certain expressions from the Symbol known to us all, which we read every day, and besides, it does not contain the words “His Kingdom will have no end,” nor the theology about the Holy Spirit, nor the remaining members to the end of the Symbol, for they were added by the Second Ecumenical Council, bringing the Symbol to the unchanged form in which we read it now. Consequently, in volume 2 on p. 155 of the “Synodikon”, in the 5th act of the IV Council, where the Nicene Symbol with the words “His Kingdom will have no end” is placed, there is certainly a typographical error, since in all other places it is given without these words, as, for example, in volume 1 on p. 283 “Synodikon”, in the 18th act of the VI Ecumenical Council (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 650), in the acts of the Council of Carthage, in Socrates (book 1, chapter 8) (PG 67, 68AB) and generally everywhere. And since these words were added by the Second Ecumenical Council, see also the preface to it. Also note that this Nicene Symbol, according to some codes, contains the words “and sitting at the right hand of the Father,” but according to others, it does not. As worthy of mention, we note here that the Creed was read in the ancient Church only on Good Friday, when the bishop instructed the catechumens who were preparing to be baptized on the night of Holy Saturday, at dawn of Easter, as Theodore the Reader tells about this in the 2nd book. “Ecclesiastical History” (Theod. Lect. Eccl. hist. II, 32 // PG 86a, 201A). Then Timothy of Constantinople, under Emperor Anastasia in 515, ordered it to be read at every liturgy, as the same Theodore says. Later, in 545, Emperor Justinian was the first to determine at what time in the liturgy it should be read in all churches of the East, namely before the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father.” Phot. Bibl. 15 // PG 103, 56V. Not everyone determines the time of announcement the same way. The “Apostolic decrees” require the catechumen to undergo the catechumen within one year (Const. Ap. VIII, 32 // PG 1, 1132B. Probably, the authors of the “Pidalion” made a mistake: the time of catechumen according to the “Apostolic decrees” lasts three years, not one). Rule 42 of the Local Council, convened in the Spanish city of Elvira shortly before the First Ecumenical Council, for two years. The 144th novella of Justinian assigns two years to the Samaritans who come to faith. The 25th rule of the Local Council in Agatha, convened in 506, appointed 8 months for converting Jews. Rule VII Universal. 8 requires that we accept not those Jews who believe hypocritically, but only those who believe truly and condemn Jewish customs. Some believe that the announcement lasted only as many days as the Great Pentecost. This is the conclusion they draw from the rule of Laodice. 45, the epistle of Jerome to Pammachius and the 1st cataclysmic teaching of Cyril of Jerusalem. But from them, perhaps, it only follows that on Great Pentecost the final and most essential part of the catechumen took place, because in those days those catechumens were baptized on the night from Holy Saturday to Easter. However, the announcement time was sometimes shortened due to forced circumstances. Thus, those who are catechumens, if they are near death, are baptized before the period established for the catechumen, according to Neokesar. 12, Laodice. 47, Carthage. 52, Vasily the Great. 5, Kirilla Alexander. 5. The Burgusians, or Burgundians, a people in Gaul, for the sake of their ardent faith in Christ and the need to oppose their enemies, the Huns, prepared for baptism for only seven days, and on the eighth they were baptized by the bishop of a Gaulish city (Socrates. Book 7, chapter 30) (PG 67, 805C). One way or another, according to this rule, it is better to set a time for the announcement that is sufficient to test the person being announced. Zonara says that “spiritual sin” is any sin that occurs from the perversion of the three forces of the soul: verbal, irritable and concupiscible (Zon. In can. Conc. I Nicaen. 2 // PG 137, 228D). And Balsamon says that this is any sin, because it harms the soul, no matter where it has its origin: in carnal or spiritual attraction. Others called spiritual sin the sin that arises from spiritual passions, i.e. conceit, disobedience, etc. (Bals. In can. Cons. I Nicaen. 2 // PG 137, 225C–228A). However, in its proper sense, the spiritual sin that is spoken of in this rule is exaltation, arrogance and pride, for only this passion relates to the spiritual and immaterial nature of the soul. It is that condemnation and that snare into which the devil has fallen, according to the saying of the Apostle mentioned in the rule, and according to the interpretation of this saying by the divine Ambrose. So Saint Augustine (On the City of God. Book 3) says: “The devil is devoted not to the vice of drunkenness or something similar, but to pride and envy.” So, if a bishop falls into the passion of pride, showing this in his speeches and actions, and is convicted by two or three witnesses, then he should be banned from ministry - probably in order to humble himself, moderate his wisdom, and then return to the ministry of the priesthood again. If he becomes even more arrogant and does not want to stop performing sacred functions, then let him be completely expelled from his dignity. And the fact that overt pride entails defrocking is clear from the example of the Novatians, who were excommunicated from the Church because, out of arrogance and pride, they called themselves pure and did not accept those who renounced during persecution and those who repented, and also did not have communication with second-weds. According to some, by “mental sin” the present rule means a slanderous and ungodly way of thinking. But if this were so, then it would be appropriate for someone who has such a way of thinking not only to be banned from serving, but also to be completely deposed and excommunicated from the Church. Finally, since pride is a mortal sin, and those who commit a sin leading to death are deprived of their dignity, according to the 32nd rule of Basil the Great. (which you should read), therefore the present rule punishes anyone who has fallen into such a sin with a ban on serving. Not only do the Ecumenical and Local Councils collectively condemn and subject to penance those clergy or laymen who have strange women in their homes, either for the sake of service (as was the case with Presbyter Gregory, to whom Basil the Great writes), or under the pretext that they are supposedly defenseless and there is no one to take care of them, but each of the divine fathers individually did not fail to nail pillory is such an evil. Gregory the Theologian in his poems is perplexed, not knowing who to classify those who have female cohabitants: whether they are married, unmarried and virgins, or in the middle between married and virgins. He says: “And I don’t know whether we’ll classify cohabiting people, as everyone calls them, as married or single, or if we’ll keep some kind of middle ground for them. For even if they speak badly of me, I will not praise this” (Greg. Nazianz. Epigr. 15 // PG 38, 89A). And his co-name, Gregory of Nyssa, in a word about virginity, condemning such, says: “They not only please the womb with everything that gives pleasure, but also openly cohabit with women, and, moreover, they also call such cohabitation a fraternal union” (Greg. Nyss. De virgin. 23 // PG 46, 409B). The Divine Chrysostom (Word to those living with virgins. Vol. 6. P. 214) says this: “Some, without marriage and intercourse, take innocent girls, leave them in their homes forever and live with them until a very old age, not for the sake of childbearing (since they say that they do not copulate with them) and not for the sake of fornication and debauchery (because they say that they are preserving them virgin and pure). If you ask them why they do this, they will answer with many reasons, but not one of them is blessed or pious. After all, the true reason for this cohabitation of theirs is nothing other than addiction and enjoyment of a passion stronger and hotter than the passion of those who live with their legal wives. A legitimate wife, as long as her intercourse with her husband is not forbidden, moderates the hot passion, and sometimes quenches the husband’s lust, and calms the immeasurable attraction. In addition, labor pains, and the birth of children, and their feeding, and illnesses, which because of all this constantly accompany a legal wife, dry up the color of her beauty and, therefore, make the sting of pleasure completely powerless for a man. But this does not happen with a virgin cohabitant, because neither intercourse with a cohabitant can weaken the unbridled passion of his desire, nor labor pains and feeding of children dry up her body. Such women retain their beauty for many years, since they are not affected by the reasons detrimental to beauty that we mentioned. At forty they look beautiful, like girls and young maidens who are led into the bridal chamber. Therefore, in those who live with them, lust is kindled with double force: firstly, because they do not moderate their passion for them through copulation and intercourse, secondly, because the basis of their passion, which lies in the comeliness of the face and the beauty of women, remains strong and powerful for a long time” (Ioan. Chrysost. Contr. eos qui subintroduct. habent virgin. 1 // PG 47, 495–496). Thus, these people, according to Basil the Great (Ascetic Rules. Chapter 3), “possessed by passions, do not feel it, but seem to be in a state of insanity and intoxication” (Basil. Magn. Const. monast. 3. 2 // PG 31, 1345A). And in the words of the same Chrysostom (the Word that the ascetic should not indulge in playfulness), “every moment they receive a wound, every moment they are caught by the beast, every moment they commit adultery, weakening the bonds of chastity. Are you an insensitive stone that you are not tempted? - asks the saint. – You are a person subject to the passions of human nature. After all, is it possible to put a fire in your bosom or walk on hot coals and not get burned if you are dry grass?” (Ioan. Chrysost. Ascetam facetiis uti non debere // PG 48, 1057). “However,” the Great Basil also says (Ascetic Rules. Chapter 3), “even if we agree that he [who has concubines] is not tempted or wounded by the passion of lust, but even if he himself does not suffer harm, nevertheless he cannot easily convince others that he is not subject to passion. To seduce many, without having a single virtue, is not safe for the one who does it. In addition, something else must be kept in mind: even if a man does not suffer harm when looking at a woman, he cannot claim that a woman is free from the passions of the flesh. It may be that she is weak in mind, or more susceptible to passion - and has acquired a love attraction for someone who carelessly communicated with her. In this case, he himself was not wounded - however, he was wounded repeatedly, without knowing it. In a word, to prevent all this from happening, everyone should protect themselves and, if possible, not communicate with women at all. If it is impossible, then at least avoid frequent and prolonged meetings with women, both with everyone in general, and especially with nuns” (Basil. Magn. Const. monast. 3. 2 // PG 31, 1345A–1345C). And this applies to everyone: clergy, lay people, and especially monks, because the same abuse that monks have towards nuns, nuns also have towards monks. That is why Abba Isaac, instructing one of his monks, says, moreover, that one should run away from consecrated virgins, that is, nuns, as from fire (Isaac. Syr. Or. 9). If the saints forbid communicating with women and nuns, why not live with them? Everything that we said about having female cohabitants also applies to those who keep beardless young men in their houses and live with them. Therefore, the great Gregory in his poems advises not only an innocent young man, but also everyone, and especially a clergyman or monk, to avoid cohabitation with such young people: “Avoid every husband, but a cohabitant more than anyone else” (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. moral. 2 // PG 37, 586A). And Basil the Great, in his ascetic speech on renunciation, says: “If you are young in body, or although old in body, but young in mind, avoid close relationships with young people like fire. For the enemy, having burned many with the fire of lust for such young men, consigned them to eternal fire, under the pretext of spiritual love, casting them into the abyss of the Sodomites” (Basil. Magn. De renuntiat. saec. 5 // PG 31, 637B). After all, those who have such young men (as the same Vasily says in the word about virginity), “coming into excitement at the imagination of that object for which by nature they perceived a love aspiration, that is, at the imagination of a woman, are subsequently forced, due to their natural inclination, to commit unnatural lawlessness, looking for a woman in a man” (Idem. De virgin. 45 // PG 30, 757C). And since they do not have the opportunity to appease their inappropriate love through unnatural intercourse with a man, they suffer the same as those who have female cohabitants. “They, fixing their gaze,” says the same Basil in the above-mentioned word on renunciation, “on the faces of the beardless and having received the seed of lust from the enemy and sower of evils, the devil, reap sheaves of corruption and destruction” (Basil. Magn. De renuntiat. saec. 5 // PG 31, 637C). History buffs are well aware of the misfortunes worthy of many tears that at different times occurred in the world from beardless youths: many great laurels and monasteries perished, and many human souls fell into the snares of hell. Pay attention to this novel and the above rules. Basil. Magn. De virgin. 45 // PG 30, 757B. That is why Theodoret in his “Ecclesiastical History” (book 1, chapter 9) says that the fathers of this First Council in Nicaea, sending a conciliar letter to the Alexandrian bishops, write that the ordination of bishops must be approved by the bishop of Alexandria: “... with the consent and approval of the bishop of the Catholic Church of Alexandria” (Theod. Cyr. Hist. eccl. I, 8 // PG 82, 929C). Therefore, Sinesius writes about a certain Anthony, who was destined to become a bishop, in a letter to Theophilus that the most important thing necessary for his consecration is the hand of Theophilus: “He could, at my request, be accepted as an accomplice into the holy rank of equal honor. However, one more, most important thing is missing - your sacred hand" (Synes. Ptolem. Ep. 76 // PG 66, 1441C). And the Council of Chalcedon, mentioning the present rule in Act 13, says that it determines: the metropolitan must approve what is happening in each region and ordain all the bishops subordinate to him. Symeon of Thessaloniki explains this sacred custom as follows: The Council must elect three, who are brought before the metropolitan or patriarch, and he decides which of the three will receive notification of the ordination, and either personally ordains him with the other concelebrating bishops, or with his permission others perform the ordination (Sym. Thessal. De sacr. ordin. 192–193 // PG 155, 404). The reason why the Council issued this rule is as follows. It was the custom of the bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis to consider the bishop of Alexandria first and not to carry out any church work without his consent, as Epiphanius says in the chapter on the 61st heresy (St. Epiphanius mentions the primacy of the bishop of Alexandria in his word against the 68th heresy: Epiph. Adv. haer. 68.1 // PG 42, 185A). Using precisely this power, sschmch. Peter, bishop Alexandria, deposed Meletius, bishop. Lycopolis in Thebaid, as Athanasius the Great testifies in his second apology (Athanas. Alex. Apol. contra arian. 59 // PG 25b, 356B). The same saint also draws attention to the fact that before Peter in Pentapolis (Upper Libya) some bishops accepted the teachings of Sabellius, and therefore his false dogmas had such power that one could hardly hear a sermon about the Son of God in churches. Having learned about this, Dionysius of Alexandria sent his representatives to them so that they would convert them to the Orthodox teaching of the Church (Athanas. Alex. De sent. Dionys. 5 // PG 25b, 485C). From this it is quite obvious that the Bishop of Alexandria, even before this First Council, had patriarchal privileges and, according to ancient custom (which was especially widespread thanks to the rule of Apostle 34, which states that the bishops of each nation should know the first, etc.) had the power not only to manage the church affairs of the metropolitan regions and dioceses located there, but also to depose the bishops and metropolitans of that country. And since the aforementioned Meletius, deposed by the bishop of Alexandria, tried by force to appropriate to himself what was in custom, and dared to ordain other bishops in the Alexandrian diocese, the present Council in Nicaea, through this rule, renewed the ancient custom and again confirmed for the Bishop of Alexandria power over all the bishops of Egypt, etc. It was in this sense that the bishops of Egypt understood the present rule at the Council of Chalcedon, as can be seen from 4th of his acts (Dositheus. Twelve Books); This power is clearly spoken of in IV Ecumenical. 30. The name “patriarch” first began to be used during the time of Theodosius the Younger: Theodosius first called the Roman bishop and the divine Chrysostom patriarchs, as Socrates points out (book 7, chapter 31), and previously exclusively bishops of the apostolic sees were called patriarchs. This name was also used at the Council of Chalcedon, and in particular Justinian called the patriarchs patriarchs. This name has two meanings. Firstly, it means bishops who, by the general Council, were appointed rulers and exarchs in any metropolitan regions and dioceses, as the Second Ecumenical Council, according to the testimony of Socrates (Book 5, Chapter 8), appointed patriarchs, one of whom was Gregory of Nyssa, subordinate to the Bishop of Caesarea (PG 67, 580A). They were called patriarchs not because of the superiority of their departments, but by a council decision, in order to have greater power to inculcate piety and eradicate wickedness, thanks to which they were equal to the rest of the patriarchs. Therefore, Gregory of Nyssa, in a letter to Flavian of Antioch, spoke about the bishop of Caesarea who neglected him: “If dignity is judged by holy rank, then the Council has given us both the same privilege, or better yet, concern for general correction, so that in this we have equality” (Greg. Nyss. Ep. 1 // PG 46, 1008D). Secondly, this name means in the proper sense bishops who have the first honor in the Church by the superiority of their thrones and the first dignity - not personal, as in the previous case, but belonging to their thrones by succession. There were five of these bishops: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - they were called by their first letters the heads (κάραι) of the universe. For “κ” means the Patriarch of Constantinople, “α” - Alexandria, “ρ” - Roman, “α” - Antioch, “ι” - Jerusalem. After the first (i.e., the Roman bishop) fell away, the Patriarch of Constantinople became the first, and later a fifth was added - the Patriarch of Great Muscovy. However, he is not there now either. Even if Peter of Antioch, in a letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia, said that only he alone was called the patriarch (Petr. Antioch. Ep. 2.2 // PG 120, 757CD) (to which Balsamon also drew attention); however, we look not at what the bishops say about themselves, but at what the Catholic Church says about them. Dionysius and Timothy Elur also called the Bishop of Ephesus patriarch, but the IV Council declared this invalid. And Theodore the Historian called the Bishop of Thessaloniki patriarch, but he called him that either because he was an exarch (as the Second Ecumenical Council used this word), which we mentioned, or, as others say, because he had many episcopal regions, the number of which reached forty (Dositheus. Twelve Books). Representatives of the Roman Church interpret this rule incorrectly. For example, Pope Felix, in a dispute with Acacius of Constantinople, said, distorting the rule, that the Bishop of Rome at each Council has the right of primacy, which is what the rule of the Council of Nicaea supposedly means (i.e. the present). And before him, Paskhazin, a representative of Pope Leo, also presented this rule in a distorted form at the IV Council. We, on the contrary, find in the very words of the rule what this Council really meant. So, we say that since Meletius violated the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, he, as we have already said, gave the Council a reason to issue this rule. It does not define anything new, but only confirms the orders that were preserved according to ancient custom. These orders concerned not only the patriarchs, but also the metropolitans, and were related not only to consecrations, which Meletius evaded, but also to any other authority of the patriarchs and metropolitans in the Churches subordinate to them. Taking this as a basis, the canon says: “Let the ancient customs accepted in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis have force, so that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all of them, since this is the custom of the Bishop of Rome.” Note here that the pronoun “this” refers to nothing other than “custom” - that is, to put it more simply, “just as the Bishop of Rome kept this custom.” What kind of custom is this? To have power over all those subordinate to him: just as the Bishop of Rome has the same custom with the Bishop of Alexandria, he also has the same power with him. That this is the meaning of the rule is evidenced by the Arabic translation of the same rules, namely the Alexandrian edition. Joseph of Egypt, the ancient interpreter of the rules of this Council, also testifies. The Latin translation of Dionysius the Less is also evidenced. The book of Isidore Mercator and, finally, the translation of Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, testify. Since, then, the truth is this, and the diocese of Rome is defined by boundaries, like the diocese of Alexandria, it is in vain that the Romans imagine that by this rule they have unlimited power throughout the world. Note also the following: since the privileges of Rome were not violated, this rule did not restore them. Otherwise, the same thing that the rule said about the bishop of Alexandria, it would have said about the bishop of Rome (Dositheus. Twelve Books). Pay attention - the advantages and privileges of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, which the rule speaks of here, are not metropolitan, as some have argued, but patriarchal. Therefore, both Balsamon and the anonymous interpreter of the rules believe that the rules are talking about patriarchs. In addition, both John of Antioch in the collection of rules, and John Scholasticus in the Nomocanon, placing this rule along with I Om. 7, II Omni. 2 and III Omni. 8, make the inscription: “On the honor of patriarchs determined by the rules.” Joseph of Egypt's paraphrase of this rule says the same thing. Arabic translation of the Melchites (Melchites - this is how, in contrast to the Monophysites, the Orthodox Christians of Syria and Egypt who accepted the definition of the Council of Chalcedon about two natures in Christ were called after the conquest of these provinces by the Arabs. The word is formed from “melek”, i.e. “king”, which indicates the loyalty of these Christians to the emperor, because of which the Melchites were subjected to more severe persecution from the Arabs than Monophysites.) in this place calls the bishops of Alexandria and Rome patriarchs (Dositheus. Ibid.). According to Balsamon (Greco-Roman Law, p. 449), the privilege of wearing sakkos, phelonion-polystauria and surplices with letters and triangles had only the patriarchs, and no one else (although, according to Zonara, phelonion-polystauria were also given to the bishops of Caesarea, Cappadocia, Ephesus, Thessalonica and Corinth; see also note to IV Om. 9). They served in sakkos only three times a year: on Easter Sunday, on Pentecost and on the Nativity of Christ, as Demetrius Khomatian says (Greco-Roman Law, p. 318). Emperors Leo and Constantine give the following definition to the word “patriarch”: the patriarch is a living and animated image of Christ, expressing the truth through his deeds and words. The goal of the patriarch is the salvation of the souls entrusted to him, life for Christ and crucifixion of himself to the world. A distinctive feature of the patriarch should be teaching and an equal, unconstrained attitude towards everyone, high and low (Eclogue of Laws. Tit. 3. Greco-Roman Law. Book 2. P. 84). Please note that, as Patriarch Philotheus says, the Council here said “to the choice that agrees with the rule” and “if they contradict due to selfishness.” The Council, says Philotheus, did not simply say “if many choose,” but “according to the rule”; and he did not simply say “if they contradict,” but “they contradict due to ambition and stubbornness.” Therefore, if some do not contradict out of selfishness and justly, then, of course, they should not be neglected, even if there are only two of them; especially when the election is non-canonical. Please note that, according to Joseph's account of the Jewish War (book 7, chapter 18), Jerusalem received this name because Melchizedek, the founder of the city, when he created the church (ἱερόν), from him called the city Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα), and before it was called Salim (Σόλυμα) (Jos. Flav. De bell. VI, 10 // TLG 0526/004, 438. 3–4). Others, like Procopius (Chain of Interpreters on the Octateuch. Vol. 1. P. 198), say - and this is perhaps more correct - that from the names of this city “Jebus” and “Salim” this complex name “Jewusalem” was formed, and in a distorted pronunciation “Jerusalem”. But be that as it may, the name “Jerusalem” is entirely Jewish, meaning “vision of the world”, according to the fathers. However, some say that it is composed of Hebrew and Greek words (just as the word “antimins” consists of Greek and Latin), but in this case it no longer means “vision of the world.” Previously called Jerusalem, this city, according to Dion, later received the name Aelia Capitolina. Eliya - from Emperor Hadrian, who bore the name Eliya. Jerusalem, previously destroyed, plowed by oxen and sown, according to Eusebius (Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. VIII // PG 22, 636B), and barely recognizable from the area, according to Gregory the Theologian (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 6. 18 // PG 35, 745B), Hadrian renamed Aelia, as they say Theodoret (Theod. Cyr . In Is. 6, 13 // PG 81, 272B) and Eusebius (Euseb. De Theophany 9 // PG 24, 649A). And it was named Capitolina because the same Hadrian, as the already mentioned Dion points out, built the church of Jupiter, revered on the Capitol in Rome, on the site of the Church of God. Caesarea received this name because Herod, according to Eusebius, built it in honor of Caesar Augustus (it was previously called Strato's Tower) (Idem. Hist. eccl. II, 10 // PG 20, 160A); it also contained statues of Caesar and Rome, as Josephus testifies in “Antiquities of the Jews” (book 15, chapter 13) (Jos. Flav. Antiq. XV, 9.6 // TLG 0526/001, 15.339.4). There were three Caesareas in Asia: one was the metropolis of Palestine, which we spoke about; the second is Cappadocia, which was called Maza Caesar, according to Sozomen (book 5, chapter 4) (PG 67, 1224A), and also Mazaka; and the third - Filippova. Used by St. Nicodemus, the verb (ἀνανεόω) emphasizes that the privileges of the mentioned departments were new, but were presupposed by the previous status of these departments (which does not detract from them in comparison with Rome). – Ed. Jos. Flav. De bell. VII, 8. 7 // TLG 0526/004, 375. 1–2. Philo. Legatio ad Gaium // TLG 0018/031, 281. 3. Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 10 // PG 20, 541B. This is how they called themselves, due to their arrogance of mind, as Eusebius writes about (book 6, chapter 43) (PG 20, 616B). Novatus was a presbyter of the Carthaginian Church, and the presbyter of the Roman Church, who founded the Novatian schism, was called Novatian. Epiph. Adv. haer. 59. 1 // PG 41, 1017B. Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 43 // PG 20, 616BC. The laying on of hands (χειροθεσία) here is not the laying on of hands (χειροτονία), as one might think, but the laying of the hand of a priest on the heads of these heretics, after which they must be accepted as repentant. Rule of Carthage. 50 also requires that penitents be received in this way, through the laying on of hands (not through the laying on of hands). The Seventh Ecumenical Council also testifies to the truth of my word. When at its first meeting this very rule was read and the question arose as to how “by the laying on of hands” should be understood, His Holiness Tarasius said that by the laying on of hands a blessing was meant here, and not ordination. Therefore, from this rule, confessors must learn to lay their hands on the heads of the penitents when they read a prayer of absolution over them. The rule of Carthage definitely speaks of the fact that such laying on of hands is necessary in the sacrament of repentance. 35. Listen also to what the apostles say in their “Ordinances” (book 2, chapter 18): “Receive the one who has committed a sin when he has mourned for it... and after the laying on of hands, let him henceforth dwell among the flock” (PG 1, 632A). And also (ibid., ch. 41 and 43): “Just as you receive an infidel after baptism has been performed on him, so after the laying on of hands you return a sinner as cleansed to the spiritual pasture. And the laying on of hands replaces baptism for him, because through the laying on of hands the Holy Spirit was given to believers” (PG 1, 696B, 701A). The custom of such laying on of hands was retained in the new grace from Old Testament times, when the high priest, through the laying on of hands, accepted burnt offerings, salvation and sacrifices for sins (see also chapters 1, 3 and 4 of the book of Leviticus). Also note that the present Council accepted the Novatians on oikonomia, as Basil the Great notes in his 1st canon. See and interpretation of II Omni. 7, which contains the 39th rule of the Council of Elvira, which prescribes the acceptance of heretics through the laying on of hands. So the First Ecumenical Council, after studying his case, sentenced Meletius to remain in Lika, having only the name of bishop, and henceforth not to perform ordination either in the city or in the village (Sozomen. Church history. Book 1, chapter 24 (PG 67, 927A); Socrates. Book 1, chapter 9 (PG 67, 80A)). Sozomen (book 4, chapter 15), speaking about Felix and Liverius, the Roman bishops, writes the following: “God so decreed (i.e., that Felix died and Liverius alone remained. - St. H.) so that the throne of Peter would not be dishonored due to the fact that it was ruled by two primates, since this is a sign of discord and does not correspond to church rule” (Sozom. Hist. eccl. IV, 14 // PG 67, 1153). And Epiphanius, in chapter on heresy 68, says that Alexandria never had two bishops (Epiph. Adv. haer. 68. 7 // PG 42, 196A). In addition, Cornelius of Rome, writing to Fabius of Antioch, condemns Novatus for the fact that he sought to become and actually became the bishop of Rome, while he himself, Cornelius, was the legitimate bishop there. “Didn’t he know,” says Cornelius, “that in one Church there should be one bishop, and not two?” (Excerpts from the above-mentioned letter of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch are contained in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea. The statement of Cornelius appears to be given on the basis of this source, although inaccurately (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 43 // PG 20, 621A)). Since it is not permissible for a bishop to be a bishop in a village or small town, where only one presbyter is enough, so that the name of the bishop is not humiliated, according to Sardik. 6, to the extent that in such small towns and villages there were so-called chorepiscopes. Chorebishop, according to Antiochus. 10, was appointed bishop of the city to which he and his village were subject. The same rule says that he must supply readers, subdeacons and exorcists, or catechists; but he must be deposed if he dares to ordain a presbyter or deacon without the permission of the bishop of the city, even if he himself has episcopal ordination. The 8th rule of the same Council allows impeccable chorebishops to issue letters of peace, or absolution, to those who demand them. Ankir's rule. 13 establishes that without a charter from his bishop, the chorebishop should not ordain presbyters and deacons either in his own village or in another city. And the rule is Neokesar. 14 states that the chorebishops, being the image of the seventy apostles, officiate as concelebrants and are honored for the care they provide to the poor, distributing among them the funds collected in the church. Rule VII Universal. 14 calls it an ancient custom for chorebishops to supply readers with the permission of the bishop. The same thing is established by the 89th rule of Basil the Great, that is, his message to the chorebishops. It is obvious that some of these chorebishops were only presbyters, while others also had episcopal ordination, as follows from Antiochus. 8, 10. But there is a difference between a bishop and a chorebishop. Thus, a chorebishop oversees only one village, but a bishop oversees many. The first is subordination to the bishop, and the second to the metropolitan. The first, for each ordination that he must perform, takes written permission from the bishop, and the second performs every ordination independently. Thus, the current so-called chorebishops, since they do not perform the named actions of a chorebishop, bear only a name, without authority. In the “Collection of Rules” of John of Antioch, instead of “their sins,” there is “the sins they committed,” which is more correct. Here let us pay attention to one general position: all priests who were ordained against the rules and unworthily before they are expelled by the Council are truly priests. After all, as Chrysostom says, “God does not ordain everyone, but through everyone he acts, even if they are unworthy, for the salvation of the people” (Conversation 2 on the Second Epistle to Timothy. Vol. 4. P. 337) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Tim. 2. 3 // PG 62, 610). And again: “For even through the unworthy, grace works not for their own sake, but for the sake of those who benefit” (Conversation 11 on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Vol. 4. P. 216) (Idem. Hom. in Ep. I ad Thessal. 11.2 // PG 62, 463). And again: “Now, even through the unworthy, God works as usual, and the grace of baptism does not suffer any harm from the priest’s lifestyle” (Discourse 8 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 3. P. 290) (Idem. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 8. 1 // PG 61, 69). Moreover, in the third discourse on the Epistle to the Colossians (vol. 4, p. 107), he proves this at length and, among other things, says: “The grace of God is such that it works even in the unworthy - not for our sake, but for your sake” (Idem. Hom. in Col. 3.5 // PG 62, 323). And again: “You do not despise me, but the priesthood. If you see me deprived of it, then despise me, then I will not dare to give orders. But as long as we sit on this throne, as long as we have the presidency, we have both dignity and strength, although we ourselves are unworthy” (Ibid. // PG 62, 324). And Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 13) says: “For the sake of ordination, grace acts in them, whether they are bishops or priests, for the salvation of those who come - and the sacraments that they perform are truly sacraments. But alas and woe, - Simeon adds there, - for those who either sinned before the ordination, or after the ordination turned out to be unworthy of the priesthood. If they desire to repent and be saved, let them withdraw completely from the most holy acts of the priesthood, for nothing else will help them in repentance unless they first withdraw from the sacred acts" (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 10–13 // PG 155, 860C–861A). See also Chrysostom’s testimony on his renunciation of the dignity in the sample canonical statement of renunciation, which is given at the end of this book. Note that those who remained firm in their faith in Christ during the persecution were generally called steadfast and were divided into confessors and martyrs. Confessors were those who were subjected to various tortures for confessing Christ, but remained alive, and martyrs were those who died in prison or at the place of torment. Those who, on the contrary, did not maintain faith in Christ, were called fallen, or defeated, or transgressed, in contrast to those who survived, and were divided into four types. The first were called sacrificers because they offered sacrifices to idols or ate something sacrificed to idols. The second are those who have confessed, because they have confessed to idols. Still others were signatories because they presented a written confession that they were not Christians, or bought a document from the eparch indicating that they had made a sacrifice. And the fourth are traitors who, out of fear of persecutors, handed over sacred Christian books to be burned (Adolf Lampe. Church History. Book 2, Chapter 3). The wicked Licinius was the son-in-law of Constantine the Great, the husband of his sister Constantia, occupied second place after Constantine, but subsequently, being overwhelmed by envy of his brother-in-law, i.e. Constantine, he also erected a fierce enmity against God. So, first he expelled all Christians from his house, and then ordered that in every city Christian soldiers would be deprived of the honors of military rank if they did not want to sacrifice to idols (Eusebius Pamphilus. Church history. Book 10, chapter 8 (PG 20, 896A–897A). On the life of Constantine. Book 1, chapter 54 (PG 20, 968С.)). But after he was killed, the most pious Constantine issued a contrary law, that Christians who had previously been numbered in military units, but because of their faith in Christ were deprived of this honor by Licinius, should be granted (each in accordance with his desire) either again, as before, to be a royal soldier, or, if he does not want this honor, to enjoy freedom (Eusebius Pamphilus. On the Life of Constantine. Book 2, ch. 33 (PG 20, 1009C); The Greek edition erroneously states “two years.” For those listening, falling and standing together, see the rule of Vasily the Great. 75. Today's church practice in most cases applies oikonomia to those who have renounced, in accordance with the order of Methodius of Constantinople. Namely, if someone was taken captive as a child and out of fear or ignorance renounced the faith, when he turns to the Church, he listens to the usual propitiatory prayers for seven days, and on the eighth he is washed, anointed with holy myrrh and receives communion, after which he remains in church for eight days and listens daily to the Divine Liturgy and other services. If someone has been matured in age and, having been subjected to torture, has renounced, he fasts twice for forty days, abstaining from meat, cheese and eggs, and three days of the week (the second, fourth and sixth) (i.e. Monday, Wednesday and Friday) - abstaining from oil and wine (note that the fast established for everyone on Wednesday and Friday is given to such, out of philanthropy and leniency, as a special rules). He listens to the same prayers for seven days and is also washed, like the one mentioned above, anointed and receives communion. If someone voluntarily went and renounced, he must fast for two years in the same way as the above-mentioned fasted, and kneel according to his strength, one hundred or two hundred. After this, he also listens to propitiatory prayers, washes himself and accepts everything else, like those mentioned above (Vlastar. Synopsis of the rules of John the Faster; Armenopoul. Summary of the rules. Section 5. Tit. 4). See also in Euchology this sequence and these prayers in more detail. Thus, it is appropriate for a confessor to cry and grieve for the sins of those Christians who confess to him, however, not during the confession itself, but after it, when he must give them advice. These tears of his show that he loves sinners, like the father of his children, and grieves for them, as Jacob grieved for Joseph, Moses and Jeremiah for the Israelites, and as the Lord mourned Jerusalem. In addition, look in the word of Gregory of Nyssa on repentance, how he encourages confessors to grieve for sinners (in PG this word is placed among the works of St. Asterius of Amasia: Aster. Amas. Hom. 13 // PG 40, 352D–369C). Therefore, the divine Chrysostom in the 2nd word about the priesthood says: “It is not appropriate for a shepherd to impose penance according to the magnitude of sins, but one should also keep in mind the will of those who sin, so that, wanting to sew up what is torn, do not tear it even more and, trying to restore the fallen, do not plunge him into a more severe fall. Thus, those who are weak by their own free will, if they undergo penance little by little, will be able to free themselves from their sins and passions, albeit not completely, but at least partially. If the shepherd immediately imposes on such people all the appropriate penance, then he will deprive them of even that little correction that they could have received.” And again: “So, therefore, the shepherd must have great prudence and many eyes in order to consider the disposition of the soul from all sides. For there are those who cannot endure severe punishment, become stiff-necked and, retreating, fall into despair, and, on the contrary, there are those who, not receiving punishment equal to their sins, fall into negligence, become worse and receive a reason to sin even more” (Ioan. Chrysost. De sacerd. 2.4 // PG 48, 635). Therefore, even during the Patr. Bishop Luke, who assigned penance to one soldier for a very short time, although he committed an arbitrary murder, and gave him a written justification, was condemned by the Council for showing excessive leniency. The Bishop brought this rule as evidence to the Council. However, he heard from the Council that although bishops were given the right to increase and reduce canonical penances, they were not given the right to use leniency without measure and consideration. Therefore, the Council subjected the warrior-murderer to penance according to the rules, and punished the bishop by banning him from the rank of bishop for a certain long time. Please note that in this rule the two principles that Basil the Great mentions in his 3rd rule are observed, i.e. custom and example, as well as acrivia and perfection. Custom and pattern are three years designated for listening, and ten for falling down, and akrivia and perfection are tears, patience of sorrows, charity, and in general genuine and true repentance. And those who loved the acriva were given leniency in that they did not have to observe the time prescribed for the fall; and those who did not love her are not shown any leniency, but are ordered to observe all these years. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 14 on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians) says: “I am not asking about the length of time, but about the correction of the soul. So, show this: if those who sinned came to contrition, if they changed their lives, then everything was done. And when this is not the case, then there is no benefit from prolonged penance. After all, when we talk about bodily wounds, we ask not whether the wound was bandaged many times, but whether this bandage helped. So, if in a short time it has brought benefit, then there is no need to apply the bandage anymore; and if it did not bring, then let it be imposed for another, even for more than ten years - and removed when the wounded person benefits from the dressing" (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Cor. 14. 3 // PG 61, 502). And in the same conversation, Chrysostom again says that true repentance is not distinguished by the length of time, but rather by a change in the sinner’s state of mind. Therefore (according to the words of the same saint in the preface to the interpretation of the Gospel of John) it is possible in a short moment of time, if someone repents and changes his life, to improve the love of mankind and the mercy of God (Idem. Hom. in loan. 1. 3 // PG 59, 28). And Gregory the Theologian, in his homily on Lights, says that we should not accept those who do not repent and do not humble themselves, but those who do not repent as it should and do not show repentance equal to the evil they have committed, we must accept and assign them the rules of repentance corresponding to their sins. Finally, those who really repent so much that they dry up with tears, we should accept into fellowship (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 39.19 // PG 36, 358B). From all that has been said, it is easy to derive a solution to the following bewilderment: why do some rules assign penance to an adulterer, bestiality, homosexual, sorcerer and sorcerer, etc. for a greater number of years, and others for fewer? Precisely because such repentance is judged not by the number of years, but by the disposition of the soul, and so, depending on the greater or lesser repentance of them, the time of penance is determined - less or more. Likewise, John the Faster, according to the fasting, genuflection and other labors that he who performs repentance undertakes, also shortens the time of penance due to him. In other codes it is written like this: “Perfect, last and most necessary.” Dionysius of Alexandria, in a letter to Fabius, writes: “One faithful old man named Serapion sacrificed to idols. Then he became seriously ill and could not speak for three days, and on the fourth day, having received little relief, he called his grandson and asked him for the priest to come. The child went to the presbyter, and it was night. The priest also happened to become so ill that he was unable to come. And since I [Dionysius] commanded the priests to agree to give communion to those in mortal danger - especially if they convincingly ask for it - so that they would die and depart from this life with good hope, the priest gave the child a particle of the Most Holy Bread and ordered it to be soaked and placed in the mouth of the elder. And when the child did so, the old man, having swallowed a little, immediately betrayed his spirit” (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church history. Book 6, chapter 44) (PG 20, 629B–633A). Elijah, Metropolitan Cretan, in a letter to a certain monk Dionysius, says: “If there is barely a glimmer of breath in someone and he has not yet died, but remains unconscious and cannot accept or eat anything, or in any way spews out what was put into his mouth, the priest should carefully seal his lips and tongue with the touch and anointing of the Holy Mysteries” (Greco-Roman Law. P. 337). Dionysius of Alexandria (as the scholium on the present rule says) in his letter to Conon, mentioning those who fell during the persecution and before death asking to receive communion, says: “The fact that the priest will absolve them from their sins, will allow them to partake of the Divine Mysteries and they will go into that life freed from sins and free, is actually an image of God-decent love for mankind and goodness. After all, they believe that thanks to this forgiveness and communion they will receive weakening and relief of future punishment. And the fact that they, if they remain alive after this, should be bound again, and that those who were once forgiven, became partakers of Divine grace and were released to the Lord permitted and free, should again become guilty of sins, even if they did not commit anything inappropriate, after they received communion - this seems to me inconsistent and completely unjustified. If, I repeat, Saint Dionysius expressed himself in this way, nevertheless, the opinion of this Ecumenical Council should be preferred to the opinion of one individual father. That is why the wisest Photius quite rightly noted: what is approved by universal and general decrees should be preserved by everyone. And what was stated privately by one of the fathers or determined by a Local Council (that is, if it was not approved by the Ecumenical Council) represents a pious opinion for those who observe it - but also for those who do not agree with it, it does not pose a danger. Let us assume, according to the divine Dionysius, that those who, out of urgent necessity, have been granted the sacrament should not be bound again for the sake of the forgiveness received. But, firstly, this forgiveness and communion was not legal and canonical, but forced. And secondly, no one can convince others not to be tempted if they see those who are unworthy and have not produced any fruit of repentance partaking of the Divine Mysteries. Taking into account the above, the Council decided that such people should return to their previous form of repentance. And the divine Dionysius himself, as if correcting himself, adds: “However, if it turns out that any of these apostates from Christ, having regained their former health, needs greater conversion and repentance, then we advise: let him humble himself and exhaust himself - either for his own benefit, or in order not to be condemned by other people and not to seduce them. And if he obeys, he will benefit; if he does not obey, disobedience itself will serve as an accusation for him so that he will be excommunicated a second time from the Mysteries and from the faithful.” Perhaps this opinion belongs not to Dionysius of Alexandria, but to Dionysius of Corinth. I assume so, since the style of this message is similar to the style of Dionysius of Corinth in his interpretation of the book of Job. John of Antioch has rules in the congregation: “Concerning the fallen catechumens.” The clergyman Dionysius speaks about the catechumens in “Church Hierarchy,” ch. 3: “The catechumens are given last place, since they are not involved in any hierarchical perfection and are not initiated into it” (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. III, 3. 6 // PG 3, 432D). Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40. 16 // PG 36, 380V. In the “Collection of Rules” of John of Antioch there are the words “or deacon”, since above this rule also speaks of a deacon. Clerics are especially called canons and numbered among the clergy (τῷ κανόνι), because their life, mind and word are organized and directed according to the sacred canons, namely: apostolic, conciliar and paternal (see 1st note to Apostle 2). In addition, as can be seen from many rules, both monks and nuns are called canons, in contrast to the laity, who for the most part lead their lives as they have to, that is, regardless of the rules (ἀκανονίστως) and carelessly. The divine Chrysostom also mentions this hundred-fold increase (Discourse 56 on the Gospel of Matthew): “One (a person in debt - St. N.) barely pays a hundred-fold increase, while the other (God - St. N.) repays a hundredfold and eternal life (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Matt. 56. 5 // PG 58, 556). Therefore, Simeon of Thessaloniki says: “Deacons should not bring particles, but all deacons do this through the elders.” And again: “For they [deacons] do not have the gift of making an offering to God, because they are deacons and have only official dignity. In fact, if they cannot put on sacred clothing without the blessing of a bishop or priest and cannot begin any sacred rite without a presbyter, then how will they themselves perform proskomedia?” (Sym. Thessal. De sacra liturg. 96 // PG 155, 289BC). And the divine Epiphanius in the chapter on the 79th heresy says the same thing: “After all, deacons in the church rank are not entrusted with the performance of any sacrament, but only with the service of what is being performed” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 79. 4 // PG 42, 745A). And in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 8, chapter 46) it is said: “The deacon is not allowed to offer a sacrifice, or to baptize, or to perform a blessing, small or great” (PG 1, 1153A). Therefore, the written decree of Emperor Alexius Komnenos, which determines that the chartophylax of the Great Church, being a deacon, in assemblies (with the exception of the Council) sits above not only the priests, but also the bishops themselves, should be considered invalid. This decree justifies the abolition of these conciliar rules by nothing more than a long-standing custom. However, this is not a sufficient reason: rather, on the contrary, the rules should prevail, and not a custom that is contrary to the rules. Although a custom has the force of an unwritten law, and in civil matters a long-standing custom even receives the force of law, however, not in everything, but where there is no written law and where it does not contradict a written law or rule. Balsamon himself thinks so, although he approves (since he himself was a chartophylax) of the emperor’s inappropriate decision. And in accordance with the 4th decree of the 3rd title. 1st book. "Digest", which is the 41st chapter. 1st tit. 2nd book. “Basilik,” the 6th short story of Leo the Wise, also determines that an unwritten custom prohibited by the rules should not have force. Read more notes. to Apost. 39 and Sardik. 1. How much such an imperial command disturbed the bishops of that time due to its inappropriateness will be known to those who read it in Balsamon’s interpretation of this rule. Paul came from Samosata of Mesopotamia, located near the Euphrates River, and therefore was called Samosata (and not because he was the bishop of Samosata, as Balsamon and others claimed). He was the son of a Manichean woman named Callinice, as Kedrin, Blastar and Balsamon say. After the death of Demetrius of Antioch in 260 AD, he became the bishop of Antioch, as Eusebius says (Church History. Book 7, Chapter 27) (PG 20, 705B). Paul not only philosophized about the mystery of theology, for example, when he said that God is one, but one not because the Father is the source of the Divinity, but because Paul himself destroyed the Hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, like Sabellius, and glorified God as one Person with His Logos, just as man is one with his word. In this, Paul did not differ at all from the Jews (according to the divine Epiphanius chapter on heresy 65) (Epiph. Adv. haer. 65. 2 // PG 42, 13C), but moreover, he also blasphemed the economy of the incarnation, as Theodoret testifies (dialogue 2) (Theod. Cyr. Eranist. 2 // PG 83, 113D–116A). Artemon and Theodosius, Sabellius and Marcellus, Photinus and Paul of Samosata preached that Christ was only a man, and denied His eternal Divinity. In 272, the Local Council meeting in Antioch deposed Paul and anathematized him. The conciliar message of this Council is found in Eusebius in the same book. It says that Paul asserted that the Son of God did not descend from heaven, but began His existence on earth from Mary (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VII, 30 // PG 20, 709A–717A). Pay attention also to the fact that Kedrin, Blastar and Balsamon say that the Manichaeans, a few years after Paul, were renamed Paulicians after his name. See also the preface to the rules of Dionysius of Alexandria, as well as p. 155 of the “Dogmatic Armor”, where it is written that the Paulicians descend from the Manichaeans, instead of the Paulioians they are called in a more barbaric manner - Paulicians (Euth. Zigab. Panopl. dogm. 24 // PG 130, 1189D). “Other is an accusation (ἔγκλημα), and another is a reproach (μέμψις), says the divine Chrysostom in the 2nd word on Job. Accusation concerns the gravest sins, and reproach concerns the mildest sins. One who is not guilty of either is called free from accusations (ἀνέγκλητος). Therefore, one whom no one can accuse of adultery or murder is free from accusation. And the one who is condemned as impudent, or a slanderer, or an offender, or a drunkard, although free from accusations, nevertheless deserves reproach. From this it follows that Job is impeccable (ἄμεπτος), since he avoided even the smallest sins. That is why God says to Abraham: Be well-pleasing before Me and be blameless (Gen. 17:1). And the apostle, wishing to appoint shepherds of the universe, says to Titus (since at that time the beauty of virtue was rare): Ordain bishops, as I commanded you: if anyone is free from accusations (see Titus 1:5-6) (ἀνέγκλητος) (Since when interpreting the terms used in this rule, St. Nicodemus builds directly on the meaning of the Greek words; here and below in this note, quotations from the Holy Scriptures are given in literal translation.). The concept of “impeccable” had no place then... the great thing is impeccability, and freedom from accusations is in the middle: and a little good is great among the wicked... The Apostle said this not because he established it as a law, but because he condescended to error. For he knew that when piety flourishes, nature itself will begin to prefer the good and the best will be chosen” (Ioan. Chrysost. In Job 2.2 // PG 56, 569). Please note that this rule, in accordance with the reasoning of Chrysostom, requires those wishing to accept the priesthood to be not only free from accusations, but also impeccable, for since the time of Paul, piety has flourished. However, even in the time of Paul, the concept of “blameless” still existed, since Paul himself, both in the Epistle to Titus and in the Epistle to Timothy, writes: A bishop must be blameless (ἀνεπίληπτον) (1 Tim. 3:2). And this purity is almost completely indistinguishable from impeccability, as Chrysostom himself says in the interpretation: “Having said blameless, he called every virtue... therefore, when someone is hurt by his conscience for having committed any sins, it is not good if he desires the bishopric and priesthood, of which he has made himself unworthy by his actions” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 10. 1 // PG 62, 547). It is integrity that both this canon and the 9th canon of the same Council demand from priests. And if he demands from ordinary priests, then how much more from bishops? Please note: it is clear that the deaconess was ordained at a more mature age than the presbyter and deacon (according to VI Ecumenical 14), and that she performs a certain ministry (IV Ecumenical 15), however, from the “Apostolic Constitutions” it is clear that she did not, like a deacon, serve the Divine Mysteries in the altar, but served outside the altar. For the “Ordinances” say (Book 3, Chapter 9): “If we do not allow women to teach in the church (because I do not allow a wife to teach, the Apostle Paul clearly says (1 Tim. 2:12)), then how can we allow them to officiate? To place priests under goddesses is an error of Hellenic atheism, and not a statute of Christ” (PG l, 781B–785A). So, the deaconess was ordained (Ibid. Ch. 15 and 16), firstly, for enlightened, i.e., baptized, women: after the bishop anointed the head of the baptized with holy oil, and the deacon only the forehead, the deaconess came up and anointed the whole body, for it is indecent for men to see a naked female body. Secondly, for other ministries to women (PG 1, 796A–797B): since it was indecent to send a male deacon to those houses where wives lived with unbelieving husbands due to evil suspicions, a female deaconess was sent, according to the book. 3, ch. 15. The deaconess guarded the doors of the church so that no catechumen or unbelieving woman would enter (book 2, chapter 57) (PG 1, 732A). She tested those women who came from one city to another with representative letters: whether they were Orthodox Christians or defiled by some heresy, whether they were married or widows, and after the test, in accordance with the circumstances and position of each, she assigned them a place to stand in the church. The deaconess was also required to serve those widows who were included in the church list. She brought them alms given by Christians, and also engaged in other ministries (book 3, chapters 14 and 19) (PG 1, 792A, 801A). But first of all, she received consecration so that, according to the book. 8, ch. 20 and 28, guard the holy gates and, for the sake of chastity and decency, serve as elders in the baptism of women. It says: “The deaconess does not bless or do any of the things that elders and deacons do” (PG 1, 1117A, 1125A). Epiphanius also speaks about deaconesses (chapter on heresy 79): “Only the church rank of deaconesses had a need for women, and they were called widows, and the oldest of them - elders, but in no way were they ordered to become presbyters or priestesses. After all, a deacon in the church rank is not entrusted with performing any sacrament: he can only serve in the sacraments that are performed by priests” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 79.4 // PG 42, 745A). And again: “The rank of deaconesses in the Church exists not for the sake of them performing sacred functions and taking upon themselves the remission of sins, but for the sake of protecting the honor of the female sex, for example, during baptism, or when visiting in suffering and illness, or in those cases when, of necessity, the female body is exposed - so that only the deaconess can see it, and not the priestly men” (Ibid. 79. 3 // PG 42, 744D). It is true that Balsamon also answers the 35th question of Mark of Alexandria that the deaconesses had a degree of service at the altar, but monthly purifications made their degree and service alien to the altar. However, he himself, in turn, in the same answer says that in Constantinople deaconesses were appointed not for any participation in matters of service at the altar, but in order to perform numerous church ministries and, in accordance with church orders, instruct women. Clement of Alexandria says in the Stromata (book 3) that the apostles took their wives with them to preach as sisters and co-workers for the sake of those women who did not leave the house. And through these helpers, the teaching of the Lord entered the women’s chambers, that is, the women’s half of the house (Clem. Alex. Strom. III, 6. 53 // PG 8, 1157A). Some books contain information about how the consecration of the deaconess took place: she bowed her head, and the bishop, laying his hand on her, crossed her three times and read prayers over her. St. writes about deaconesses. Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy: Likewise, their wives should be honest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything (1 Tim. 3:11). Note that, although deaconesses differed from both widows and elders, despite all this, deaconesses were also elected from the rank of widows numbered in the Church. Read also the note. 2 to VI Omni. 40 and note. to Laodice. 11. If the inquisitive person would like to know how such deaconesses were ordained, let him find more detailed information about this from Vlastar. He says: in the ancient books it is written that they were ordained at the age of forty and they had full monastic robes (i.e., the great schema). They were covered with an omophorion so that its ends hung forward. When the bishop said over them: “Divine grace...”, they did not bow their knee, like the deacons, but only their heads. Then the bishop, having removed the omophorion, placed the deacon’s orarion on their necks so that both ends were in front. However, they were not allowed to serve during the celebration of the sacraments or hold the ripida, like the deacons, but they could only receive communion after the deacons. After the bishop finished giving communion to everyone else, they took the cup from his hands and placed it at the holy meal, but did not give communion to anyone. The lord adds on his own that later the fathers forbade them even to enter the altar and perform such services because of the monthly purifications, as Balsamon said above. This involves singing the hymn “Quiet Light.” Basil the Great (these are the words of the Lord) most excellently composed the propitiatory prayers that are proclaimed on the day of Pentecost in remembrance of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and exhorted the people to listen to them in a slavish position of the body, kneeling, so that by this position of the body they would confess the natural power of the Holy Spirit; and also so that they may thereby testify that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, before whom every knee bows, according to the Apostle (Rom. 14:11). But having composed these prayers, he decided that there was no need to read them at the third hour of the day, at which time the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles. And this is because it was not fitting for him, the interpreter and repository of the hidden mysteries of the Holy Spirit, to abolish the precedence and privilege of the Lord's day associated with the great Sacraments and objects - the same seniority and privilege that he himself had previously established (I am talking about his decree not to bend the knee on the Lord's day). Therefore, in order to prevent these inappropriate things from happening, Basil the Great determined that these prayers should be read with kneeling on the evening of Pentecost, on which the Lord's Day and Pentecost end and Monday begins, since each next day begins after the seventh hour of the previous day - both according to astronomers and according to state laws. Therefore, those who read the mentioned prayers in the morning act badly, sinfully and contrary to the rules. But even those who, on the very day of Pentecost, which bears light and bears the name of the Lord, remain without food and fast until the evening hearing of these prayers, are in fact superstitious and do not do well. After all, according to the divine Chrysostom, there is no obstacle for a person, after he has enjoyed a bodily meal, to come to a spiritual meal of words and prayers (Discourse 10 on statues and word 2 after the Kalends) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 10. 1 // PG 49, 111; De Lazaro 1. 9 // PG 48, 974). He teaches the same thing in his interpretation of the 10th verse of the 8th chapter. Deuteronomy, which says: And you will eat, and you will be satisfied, and you will bless the Lord your God (Chain of Interpreters. Vol. 1. P. 1463). Will it cause any confusion that the ap. Did Paul kneel and pray at Pentecost? Namely, in the 20th chapter. Acts says that Paul passed through Ephesus, in other words, on the way he wished to see the Ephesians, since he was in a hurry to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and after this it is added: Having said this, he [Paul] knelt down and prayed with them all (Acts 20:36). And again in the next 21st chapter. The same Luke writes: having come to Tire, they knelt down on the shore and prayed (Acts 21:5). However, this question is easy to resolve: the structure of the Church was not yet ordered and was, as it were, in its infancy, because at that time the very foundations were only being laid and neither perfection nor complete akrivia had yet been established in the Church. Please note that this rule does not speak about those kneelings, which we usually call great bows and which in the proper sense are called prostrations (such bows, when they are performed, for example, for the sake of kissing holy icons, and mainly for the sake of the Terrible Mysteries, are not prohibited on Sunday and throughout Pentecost either by the 10th rule of Nicephorus, or by sacred hymns, which sometimes say: “To you let us fall down, risen from the tomb,” sometimes: “Come, let us worship and fall down to the risen Christ,” etc.). I said that Nikephoros does not prohibit genuflection performed for the sake of kissing shrines, since he also prohibits ordinary genuflection in the same rule, saying literally this: “For the sake of kissing one must genuflect on Sunday, but ordinary genuflection should not be performed,” as is written in many handwritten codes. The divine Isaiah also prohibits them: in his letter to Theodora, he says that if she kneels on Sunday and Pentecost, she is subject to the most severe punishment. And St. Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopulus also prohibit them, for some, as they say, mysterious and ineffable reasons (Callist. et Ign. Xanthopul. Op. ascet. 39 // PG 147, 712). The statutes prohibit these great bows on Sunday, Saturday and during the entire Pentecost. And the reason for this is that the mentioned falls are also contained in kneeling, which is prohibited by the rules. So, the rule does not speak about the usual great genuflections, but about those during which we pray, kneeling and prostrate, that is, about genuflections of this kind that we perform on the evening of Holy Pentecost. From this the following follows: praying on one’s knees is not a Latin or pagan custom, but an evangelical and church custom. Gospel, because the Lord prayed in this way, for he bowed his knees, says Scripture, and prayed (Luke 22:41). Apostolic, because Paul also prayed in the same way, as we said above. And again: For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:14). And especially so prayed Jacob, the brother of God, whose knees, as Metaphrastus and others write, due to frequent kneeling, became swollen, like a camel’s (Sym. Metaph. Vita s. Jacobi, fratris Domini l. 2 // PG 115, 201A). And together the apostles in their decrees (book 8, chapters 9 and 15) say that the faithful, kneeling, prayed to God during the liturgy (PG 1, 1085B, 1112C–1113A). This custom is also a church custom, because the VI Ecumenical Council in the 90th canon says that on Sunday evening we offer prayers to God, kneeling. Therefore, the Great Basil (in the word, the beginning of which is “Man in the image ...") writes that the time of prayer was divided into seven intervals in order to give some rest in the intense genuflection during prayer (Basil. Magn. Sermo asceticus 2.4 // PG 31, 877AC), - just like many of the venerable hermits were found betraying their spirit on their knees. Eusebius also writes that in the time of Marcus Aurelius, Christian soldiers prayed by kneeling on the ground, according to the prayer custom typical of Christians (Ecclesiastical History. Book 5, Chapter 5) (PG 20, 441A). However, you should not always pray on your knees, but you should also pray while standing, according to both this rule and the Gospel, which says: When you stand in prayer (Mark 11:25). We should add the following to this note: since Saturday is the day on which God rested from the works of creation, the day of death and placement in the tomb, because on this day the Lord was buried and laid in the tomb, then on Saturday the commemoration of those lying in the tomb is also performed. Since this is the day of repose, starting from Saturday, genuflection ceases, because it is some kind of work, as shown by the statutes that decreed that genuflection should be abandoned on the evening of every Friday at Pentecost, as also evidenced by the divine Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos in the Philokalia. But since this is a day related to death and burial, and not to resurrection, this is also the rule of I Om. 20, and rule VI Omni. 90 did not forbid kneeling on Saturday, for they depict falling to the ground and falling into death, according to the mentioned 91st rule of Basil. The 2nd rule of Nicholas also says that kneeling on Saturday is not prohibited by the rules. Therefore, those who kneel on the Sabbath do not sin. So, the cathedral rules do not contradict the statutes, for they made different definitions about Saturday genuflections: the rules are one way, the statutes are different - because they had different meanings in mind for this day. And why kneeling has already been stopped in the Eastern Church, see the note. to VI Omni. 90. Please also read the following note. Just. Martyr. Responses ad orthodox. 115 // PG 6, 1364B–1365A. Epiph. De fide 22 // PG 42, 828A. Note to the end of the agreement of the 20th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, omitted in the second edition. The fact that on Wednesday and Friday of Pentecost there is a fast for fish and there is permission only for oil and wine, is clear from the cathedral Rules and the Colored Triodion, which teach the conciliar general teaching of the Orthodox regarding such customs. Since these sources indicate permission for fish on Wednesday of Mid-Pentecost and the celebration of the Feast of the Resurrection, it is quite obvious that the consumption of fish is definitely said not in order to prohibit the consumption of meat on these days (for the Church has never allowed such meat-eating, since both the legal decrees contained in the Charter and John of Kitra in his answers do not allow meat-eating on these days), but so that from this prescription we We realized that on other Wednesdays and Fridays there is no permit for fishing, but only on these, for the sake of the holiday. If Patriarch Nicholas and the legal decrees speak differently about this, then in such matters the conciliar law of the Church is not constituted by their reasoning, but by the statutes of the saints. See also the instructions at the end of the Typikon, where it is written that laurels and those living alone on Pentecost and Christmastide should only allow wine and oil.